Margaret Bowland and the Stolen Painting - Part II

Remember the whole saga two years ago of how New Mexico art dealer Klaudia Marr allegedly conned the National Portrait Gallery to ship a painting by New York artist Margaret Bowland to a third party who apparently had paid Marr for the painting, even though, according to Bowland, Marr and Bowland had ended their relationship (and Bowland had earlier notified the NPG of this, and claims she has never received a penny from the painting's alleged sale).

Portrait of Kenyetta and Brianna, Oil on linen, 2008. 80 x 72 in. (203.2 x 182.9 cm) by Margaret Bowland
Read this article in the New York Daily News by John Mazulli about a law suit Bowland has filed against the NPG over the loss of her painting. I have obtained a copy of the complaint filed in Federal Court in Brooklyn and it is reproduced below:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
:MARGARET BOWLAND HARRIS,
:(A.K.A.) MARGARET BOWLAND,
:Case No : _____________
:Plaintiff,
:
:v.
:COMPLAINT
:PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) & 2671-2680
:Defendants.
:THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION &
THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY,
_____________________________________

Plaintiff, by and through counsel, alleges as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. Margaret Bowland Harris (“the artist”) lives and has a studio in Kings County, Brooklyn, NY. The artist’s professional name, under which she shows her paintings and is known to the public is Margaret Bowland.
2. The National Portrait Gallery and its parent organization The Smithsonian Institution, both located in Washington, D. C. are two of the most prominent museums and cultural forces in the United States. Both organizations are a part of the United States government.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and venue is proper because the artist’s residence in Kings County, NY is within the
jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. 1402(b) & 1346 (a).
4. The artist initiated her claim by filing a Standard Form 95
with the office of the General Counsel of the National Portrait Gallery on January 12, 2011. This date is within two years of the date of the incident or occurrences which form the basis of this claim.
5. The artist was notified on July`22, 2011 by the Office of the General Counsel of the Smithsonian Institution that her claim had been denied.
6. All preconditions for an action based on the Federal Tort Claims Act having been established, the artist then timely filed this
Complaint.

THE PAINTING AND THE PORTRAIT COMPETITION

7. The artist created a painting in oils on canvas entitled “Portrait of Kenyetta and Brianna,” (“the painting”). The painting is approximately six feet six inches tall and six feet wide and depicts three life size female figures.
8. The painting was exhibited at the Klaudia Marr Gallery in Santa Fe, New Mexico from October 17, 2008 to November 29, 2008.
9. The Klaudia Marr Gallery was owned and operated by Klaudia Marr (“Marr”).
10. On or about November 15, 2008, the artist was notified that the painting had been selected for the Outwin Boocheever Portrait Competition at the National Portrait Gallery (“the NPG”) in Washington D. C.
11. The NPG sent a shipper to pick up the painting at the Klaudia Marr Gallery and deliver it to the NPG on or about November 29, 2008.
12. The artist signed an Incoming Loan Agreement (“the agreement”) dated November 29, 2008 with the NPG. The period of the loan was March 1, 2009 to October 1, 2010.
13. On February 26, 2009, in an email to both the artist and Marr, the NPG stated that Marr had acknowledged that the artist was the legal owner of the painting. Marr never objected to the statement by the NPG that the artist was the legal owner of the painting.
14. The exhibition of paintings from the NPG portrait competition (the exhibition”) opened on October 23, 2009 and ran almost one year, closing on August 29, 2010. The painting was named one of six finalists in the competition and at the end of the show was awarded “The People’s Choice Award.”

THE RETURN OF THE PAINTING

15. Under the terms of the agreement, the painting was to be released by the NPG at the end of the exhibition only to the lender (the artist) unless the NPG was timely notified otherwise in writing by the lender.
16. The artist never notified or authorized the NPG to release the
painting to anyone other than her.
17. Under the terms of the agreement, in case of any change in legal ownership of the painting during the period of the loan, the new owner shall give the NPG legal proof of such a change as soon as possible.
18. The NPG never received notice or legal proof that the ownership of the painting had changed from the artist to anyone else.
19. The credit line used by the NPG during the exhibition and in the catalogue of the exhibition was “From the collection of the artist.”
20. As the exhibition drew to a close, the NPG sent the artist two emails about returning the painting. These emails were sent to an email address that the artist had not used for over a year instead of to the email address the artist had been using for numerous emails between herself and the NPG during the past year. The artist did not receive the emails sent to the old address.
21. The NPG had the artist’s telephone number and street address but did not try to contact her through them. The artist never received any U. S. mail, overnight delivery service mail or telephone calls from the NPG about to whom the painting should be sent.
22. The NPG sent a “carbon copy” to Marr of its second email to the artist on August 27, 2010.
23. Not quite nine hours after the NPG cc’ed Marr with its email to the artist, Marr sent an email to the NPG directing that the painting be sent directly to her client, David Naylor of Santa Fe, New Mexico (Naylor).
24. Despite these facts: that during the exhibition the painting had been credited as being “From the collection of the artist;” that the artist had never authorized the NPG to send the painting to anybody but herself; that the NPG had never received any notice or proof that the painting had an owner other than the artist; and that, once the NPG attempted to confirm where the painting should be sent, the NPG had never contacted the artist by telephone, U. S or overnight mail or by the current email address in its possession, NPG shipped the painting to Naylor.
25. When the artist learned that Naylor had the painting, she contacted him several times in an attempt to either get the painting back or to receive payment for it. Naylor claimed to have already paid Marr for the painting, and to date he has neither returned the painting nor paid the artist anything for it.
26. Marr has never paid the artist anything for the painting.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT

27. By signing the Agreement, the NPG was contractually responsible for returning the painting to the artist.
28. The NPG was in breach of the Agreement when it shipped the painting to Naylor.
29. As a consequence of the NPG’s breach of contract, the artist has been deprived of a valuable work of art which lawfully belonged to her.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE

31. The NPG owed the artist a duty of care to insure that the painting be returned to the proper person.

32. The NPG failed to take reasonable steps to insure that the painting was shipped to the proper person.
33. Failure to take reasonable steps to insure that the painting be returned to the proper person makes the NPG negligent in its duties to the artist.
34. As a result of the NPG’s negligence toward the artist, the artist has been damaged by being deprived of a valuable work of art which is lawfully hers.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests this Court to award compensatory damage of $100,000, against the United States of America, the Smithsonian Institute and the National Portrait Gallery and such other and further relief as appears reasonable.

Dated: January 19, 2012
New York, NY

Update: Read Court House News take on the issue here.

Update 2: Read an almost personal attack on Bowland by Julia Halperin in ArtInfo.com here

Tomorrow: NYC NOW in Bethesda

NYC NOW is an exhibition of new work by 5 contemporary artists living in New York City and it is Morton Fine Art's (MFA) fourth *a pop-up project.

The exhibition features new artworks by nationally renowned, New York based, contemporary artists Margaret Bowland, Kenichi Hoshine, Choichun Leung, Jules Arthur and Jason Sho Green. *a pop-up project will be on display from November 11th through December 6th 2011 at Gallery B located at 7700 Wisconsin Ave # E, Bethesda, MD 20814-6530. The opening reception will be held on Friday, November 11th from 6 - 9 pm. Images can be previewed online at www.mortonfineart.com and www.apopupproject.com.

NYC NOW in Bethesda

NYC NOW is an exhibition of new work by 5 contemporary artists living in New York City and it is Morton Fine Art's (MFA) fourth *a pop-up project.

The exhibition features new artworks by nationally renowned, New York based, contemporary artists Margaret Bowland, Kenichi Hoshine, Choichun Leung, Jules Arthur and Jason Sho Green. *a pop-up project will be on display from November 11th through December 6th 2011 at Gallery B located at 7700 Wisconsin Ave # E, Bethesda, MD 20814-6530. The opening reception will be held on Friday, November 11th from 6 - 9 pm. Images can be previewed online at www.mortonfineart.com and www.apopupproject.com.

One more former Klaudia Marr artist complains

The story so far: As I reported a few days ago, New Mexico art dealer Klaudia Marr allegedly conned the National Portrait Gallery to ship a painting by New York artist Margaret Bowland to a third party who apparently had paid Marr for the painting, even though, according to Bowland, Marr and Bowland had ended their relationship (and Bowland had earlier notified the NPG of this, and claims she has never received a penny from the painting's alleged sale).

A new artist has now emerged from this story, also allegedly victimized by Klaudia Marr.

The artist is Isabelle du Toit and her saga with the Santa Fe art dealer goes back almost a year. Isabelle wrote to me (all the below text and quotes are published with the permission of Isabelle du Toit and is from the text of her correspondence to me):

She [Klaudia Marr] owes me $5000 for 3 paintings she sold but never paid me. I even have her admission in an email that she acknowledges that she owes me this money but her last email to me stated that her business has closed and that there is nothing I can do to collect my money.

What happened here?

We pick up the trail on Monday, May 03, 2010, when du Toit writes to the gallerist and says:

Hi Klaudia,

I left you a message on Friday but you didn't call me back. You said you would pay me for the 3 paintings you sold 6 month ago last month.

Could you please send me the check as soon as possible.

The paintings are the Costa Hummingbirds 16x20, the Red Eyed Tree Frogs 16x20 and the Mice 20x24

Please call me or email me a reply.

Thanks.

Isabelle

From that note we gather that the three paintings were sold around December 2009. Since no payment had been sent six months later, it appears that the gallery is already in financial trouble and keeping artists' commissions in order to stay open. The next day Marr answers du Toit, explaining that she (Marr) "has not forgotten about my obligations to you; this Friday is our first big opening of the season and I am hoping that we will fare well... there just haven't been any sales; it's tough... I am not making excuses, all I can do is move forward to catch up; I am very sorry! you will hear from me when a payment is going out to you, which will probably [be] a partial one..."

From this we gather that Marr is in a desperate financial situation, where she is now hoping to have sales (I guess by other artists) in order to try to pay other artists (such as du Toit) whose works she sold as far back as six months earlier.

That same day du Toit's husband answers Marr:

Your payments has been outstanding for an unreasonably long time now... I also want to know what reasonable partial payments you can make now, and when the balance will be paid for each of them.

This is an unfortunate situation for everybody, but one should take responsibility and do what is right.

Please let me know in writing by responding to this email tomorrow how you plan to resolve this.

If I don't see a prompt and reasonable effort on your side you put this right, you can be sure that legal action will follow!

Marr answers that same day, admitting to du Toit that she owes du Toit a $5,312.50 commission and notes that du Toit "can take as many legal actions as you want - there is nothing to gain, unfortunately; you cannot take something that doesn't exist; there is no other way than waiting and I don't know when the money will come but I know that I won't stop until it is repaid; I cannot commit to a timeline nor to an amount since it all depends on sales coming in..." Once again, Marr appears to hope that future sales can be used to pay past commissions. She is pushing the inevitable disaster to the right.

The du Toits then give Marr a month, and a month later ask for an update. On June 3, 2010, Marr responds:

Again, I am sorry our relationship has come to this point. I literally have zero assets and no way to make payment arrangements at this time. I have sold my house, (putting every dime into this business), moved to an inexpensive location and let go of my employee (whom I still owe back wages). Instead of closing my doors and walking away I have chosen to try my very best as the season approaches to make enough to honor all my contracts. Without any sales I cannot make payment arrangements. I do not have the funds.

I understand your frustration. Over the years I have seen many artists who were not paid when their galleries went out of business - and this happened when the economy was good. After fifteen years in business I am determined not to let this economy do this to me or to my artists. You will do what you will, but I would ask you, for the sake of everyone involved, to please let me tackle this season with as much energy as I can muster. I can offer you no other alternative.

Respectfully yours,

Klaudia

From this timeline of communications, it appears to me that at some point around here is when the alleged sale of Margaret Bowland's $37,500 painting (which was hanging at the NPG) took place without her consent or knowledge. (Update: Subsequently it has been discovered that the painting was allegedly sold as early as a year prior to this time). Also at some point in the timeline around here, Marr allegedly contacted the NPG and asked that Bowland's painting be identified on the wall text as "from the collection of ..." clearly implying that the painting had been sold. According to Bowland, the NPG immediately contacted Bowland who notes:

I told [the NPG] absolutely not.

I had never received one dime for the painting and had no expectations of receiving money for the piece. [The NPG] called again and said that [they] well understood and... we spoke for a bit about the horror of thieving dealers. By now the word had gone out that the Marr gallery was stealing from its artists. She had been running the gallery as a ponzi scheme and when the bottom fell out of the market she started lying to people and stealing their art. A friend in the gallery had contacted me and told me this and I had moved very fast to send a shipper in to grab my art. At the time I felt quite fortunate. My friend lost 9 paintings to her. But with this call from [the NPG] I felt that I was safe in the protective hands of the Smithsonian and what could be safer?

What did Marr do with this money from the alleged sale of the Bowland painting? It's a substantial amount, and the buyer of the painting has informed Bowland that he had paid "$37,500 dollars and he still owed six grand on the painting." So Marr has $31,500 in cash sometime around this timeframe from an allegedly illegal sale where she has allegedly played the NPG into shipping the painting to a third party.

None of those funds make their way to du Toit. She writes in mid June:

Klaudia, please let me know what the status is. I am sure you are able to buy food since you are not dead yet and I am sure you are able to buy gas to drive your car.

My patience is running out with you and you are not being fair. I am trying my best to work with you and would accept even a small regular payment to show you mean what you say. If you don't take corrective action very soon, we will hire a debt collector and they are not pleasant.

You need to make this right, right now! This is your last warning!

She follows that with:

We are not making any threats other than to consider legal options against you for payment if you force us to.

Please don't misinterpret what we say. We are just frustrated that you are not paying. Can you really not even pay a small amount just to show you mean to keep your promise?

Thanks

Isabelle

Marr responds:

Isabelle,

at this time I am not even able to give you a small amount; I have explained my situation to you over and over again and I do not feel that you are hearing me; I do not dispute that I owe you the commissions;

I will be in contact with you by September 15; please be so kind and don't distract me from my duties until then;

Klaudia

To try to warn other artists, Isabelle then stood up this website. Since then, more artists have contacted me; their saga next.

Bowland's response to the NPG

Apparently the National Portrait Gallery has officially finally contacted Margaret Bowland on the saga of her stolen painting. Bowland's response to the NPG encapsulates the whole saga:

Mr. Earhart:

After reading the documents you faxed to my husband I have to admit that I understand NPG's legal position.

There are, however a few things I need to say on my behalf.

All the communication to me from the NPG about shipping the painting at the close of the show was sent to an AOL email account that I have not used for over a year. This despite my having communicated several times with various members of the NPG staff using my new, gmail address. It is also hard to understand why if I did not respond to an email someone did not bother to telephone me. My telephone number is on the Loan Agreement, and I have an answering machine.

As you mention in your letter to my husband, I had a telephone call with a member of the NPG staff after the credit line mentioning the Klaudia Marr Gallery had been agreed on. In this telephone call I told the NPG staffer that I had broken my relationship to the Marr Gallery because they had failed to pay me for work of mine they had displayed and sold to collectors, I stated clearly that I was the sole owner of the Portrait of Kenyetta and Brianna, and that the picture should be returned to me. When I saw that the credit line on the painting at the exhibit and in the catalogue ommitted any mention of the Klaudia Marr Gallery I assumed that the telephone call had been sufficient notice to return the painting to me, the acknowledged owner.

You say you first became aware of this situation on September 23, 2010. I was not sent a copy of the Loan Agreement explaining NPG's position until yesterday, October 6. Had I gotten that information sooner, my reaction to the whole mess would have been a little different.

My reaction would also have been different had someone from the NPG called me on the telephone at any time between September 23 and now. I asked, in fact begged, via emails, for someone from the NPG to telephone me and explain what had happened. No one called, and the emails I did get just put me off and referred to a loan agreement, which I only got yesterday.

I understand now that you are protected by legal documents. The fact remains, however, that a collector in Santa Fe now has possession of the painting, Klaudia Marr has received a substantial amount of money for it, and I -- the rightful owner and creator of the painting -- have nothing to show for my efforts.

The painting was an important part of the portrait competition exhibition and has become associated with the NPG. It was awarded a commendation as one of the finalists and was a favorite among viewers. It won the People's Choice Award by
popular vote. My talk in front of the painting at the NPG during the exhibition was recorded and has been circulated on Youtube.

I would have thought that the NPG would have helped me get the painting back. Instead, you have spent all your energy fending me off and protecting
yourself.

Once again I ask the question: Since the NPG was the unwilling participant in an alleged scam to defraud the artist, why are they not assisting the victims (both the NPG and the artist) in dealing with Law Enforcement?

A federally funded museum has been allegedly conned by an art dealer into assisting in the alleged theft of a work of art which had been on exhibit at the museum and all they (the NPG) is doing is apparently circling the wagons to remove themselves from the issue?

I ask the question once again and hope the NPG sends me an answer: Why are they not picking up the phone and calling the FBI's Art Theft Unit?

Update: Kriston Capps has dug some new info on this subject. Read the comments section to read it.

Update 2:Margaret Bowland has sent in a response to Kriston Capp's (11:06 am in the comments section). However, because it exceeds the max number of characters allowed in the comments form, it is being posted here:

Well, Lenny, yes there was a check made out to me for Murakami wedding. Three years ago. The check was for 2,000 dollars against a bill for 21000 dollars that I was due. So far I agree with Mr. Capps.

I told him the rest of this story, but it seemed not to have mattered to him, but here it is.

At the time Marr sent me this paltry check, three years ago, other artists in the gallery were alerting me to the fact that her gallery was falling apart, people were not getting paid. In the gallery world, the artist assumes shipping payments to a gallery and the gallery must pay to have unsold work returned. This is very expensive, as you can well imagine, to ship large works from NY to Santa Fe. MARR had the consignment to sell my work for the duration of a one month long group show. Listening to the people around me I called her and requested that my work be returned to me. She refused.

So at the urging of friends I sent a shipper in at my own expense, 1800 dollars to retrieve my work. At this point, I stupidly sighed a sigh of relief because the Murakami painting was (I thought) safely in the hands of the NPG.

The shippers had a list of the works they were to retrieve for me. On the day they arrived there was a painting missing. I asked to speak to Klaudia on the phone. In a flustered voice, she said, "Oh yes, didn't I tell you, the "Bride Painting" sold to a South African woman. It has already been shipped out of the country."

Of course, I was furious, but I was afraid as well. I just wanted to get away from this woman. My half of the painting, pastel "the Bride" that she had sold was to have been 3500 dollars. I said to her on the phone, "Klaudia, I have no way of trusting you anymore. I am considering the last 2000 dollars I have just received from you to be the end of our relationship. I am going to count it toward the Bride Pastel for which you still owe me 1500. This is the last of our relationship."

And I repeated to her, that the 2000 dollars would go toward the "Bride picture" and "the Murakami was free and clear." I also said that she was free to send me full payment for any of the works and then there would be new grounds for discussion. She said nothing to this, accepted it. Needless to say I never talked to her again until she called me two weeks ago hysterical and teary.

And I have never received another dollar from this woman. Right now if you add the shipping bill she was supposed to pay me, the rest of "The Bride Pastel" and "The Portrait of Kenyetta and Bryanna" that she stole, the bill comes to 24,300 dollars. That is a huge amount of money to me.

Sadly, I felt this was the worst damage she could do me and walked away believing the Murakami painting was mine to sell. If indeed this is or was a legitimate sale why in two years has Ms. Marr made no attempt to send me the balance she owes me of 19 thousand dollars?

I had thought that I would not be bothered by this woman for the rest of my life. I had been told that she had disbanded her gallery and to escape hundreds of creditors she had disappeared and I felt, good riddance.

All of this was explained at length to Ms. LaPorta (or LaRosa?) Ms. De Rosa from the NPG in the telephone conversations I had with her before the show ever opened.

She then went on to list my name as the owner of the painting. And my name only.

So what have I done wrong here? I will admit that oddly and tragically my belief that I was on a friendly basis with the staff at the NPG worked against me terribly.

If I had not been in constant contact with these folks by email and by phone, then perhaps I would have contacted the museum when the show was winding down to make sure my paper work was in order. It just never occurred to me for a moment. They had sent me many things by mail, talked to me by phone and the email. I had no idea that the people in registrar were unaware of what was known by the people at the head of their organization and that when confronted with what looked odd, an email address that had not been used in over two years, that the registrar wouldn't have picked her head up, made a phone call, asked a question.

This whole thing was going on while I was on vacation in Holland. Just two weeks that shall prove to be the costliest two weeks of my life. When I arrived home there were many messages on my telephone but none from the NPG. Certainly I would have called immediately.

Mr. Capps concludes that the NPG did nothing illegal. It does appear that while I thought they were trying to retrieve my painting they were doing just that, making sure there legal affairs were in order so that the mighty organization could protect itself from a penniless painter. It seems they did a very good job.

But I shall ask this of you Mr. Capps? Is this right? What have I done to deserve being left without a painting or the money to pay for it? I trusted a major government agency to recognize the ownership of my work and to return it to me. They had my address every single moment. What was so hard about sending it home? And if they could not reach me for two weeks, where was the fire? The place is vast.

Rather than just send my painting to an address of which I HAD NEVER approved, did not even know, couldn't you have waited until you could have talked to me, or asked someone else in your organization if they had any current information about how to reach me? I would have proceeded that way to return a hat.

All the legal work may be in order, but a thief is alive and well and doing business with dupes in NM , the NPG glides on, the huge ship of state that it is, and the artist that was used by this ship of state to mount a popular show is left drowning in its wake. If that is justice I have no comprehension of the word.

margaret bowland

The National Portrait Gallery responds

I received this response from The National Portrait Gallery today in reference to yesterday's posting of the theft of a painting from the NPG.

The National Portrait Gallery has been directly in touch with Ms. Bowland by phone and e-mail since we were made aware of this situation September 23, and the Gallery has contacted Ms. Marr concerning this issue.

Ms. Bowland’s painting was loaned to the museum for the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition. According to our loan agreement with Ms. Bowland her painting was to be picked up from and returned to the Klaudia Marr Gallery. At the end of the exhibition Ms. Marr requested that the painting be shipped to a different address. It was our understanding that the painting was being sold.

Apparently during the course of the competition, Ms. Bowland separated from the Klaudia Marr Gallery, but did not inform the National Portrait Gallery that her painting should be returned to her.

We continue to work with Ms. Bowland as well as, the Klaudia Marr Gallery to determine if the painting is in the possession of its rightful owner.

The main issue that I have with this problem is that according to Bowland at some point during the exhibition she had a discussion with NPG staff where she did inform them that her relationship with Ms. Marr had ended on a sour note. According to Bowland:

A few months later... [the NPG] called and told me that Klaudia Marr wished to have the painting as it was hanging in the NPG attributed to a man she said had bought the painting or was in the process of buying the painting. I told [the NPG] absolutely not.

I had never received one dime for the painting and had no expectations of receiving money for the piece. [The NPG] called again and said that [they] well understood and... we spoke for a bit about the horror of thieving dealers.

From a Monday morning quarterback perspective, it is clear that there was a lack of clear communications between all parties involved. Certainly at the NPG, where some people knew about the Marr problem and clearly at least one poor innocent soul (whoever shipped the work) didn't and was never told.

The one thing that remains very clear is that allegedly Marr lied to the NPG and if so, then has committed a serious crime. What I hope the NPG now does is work with Bowland to contact the FBI Art Theft division and help Bowland recover this painting and the many others that Marr has allegedly stolen from other artists. A phone call from the NPG to the FBI would go a long way to get this horror story on the right track and would certainly get more attention from the FBI than what they are apparently giving Bowland.

The right thing to do for the NPG is to report this theft to the FBI, and I hope someone there has the cojones and moral fortitude to do it and guide this nightmare to a happy ending.

How a dealer allegedly stole a painting from the National Portrait Gallery

About ten days ago, artist Margaret Bowland received an email from a design firm in Santa Fe, NM telling her how thrilled they were to have received her painting that had been hanging in the National Portrait Gallery as part of the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition, where it won the People's Choice Award.

Portrait of Kenyetta and Brianna, Oil on linen, 2008. 80 x 72 in. (203.2 x 182.9 cm) by Margaret Bowland
As of today, the NPG's website shows the magnificent painting as "Collection of the Artist."

Bowland says that she has a heart condition, and that when she received that email her heart "started racing so hard I had to lie down on the ground in a public square until I could manage to get on the subway and get home. I raced to the computer and told the firm writing to me that I did not have any awareness of who they were and I had never received one dime for my painting and had been expecting its return to me here in NY." Subsequently, the design firm ceased communication with Bowland.

Bowland writes that she then wrote the NPG "frantically begging... to find out why these people had my painting and what was going on?"

According to Bowland, the NPG quickly stopped communicating with her. She writes that "I thought these people [the NPG] were friends of mine. But immediately they slammed shut in communicating to me at the direction of a lawyer."

She adds that it then required "days of begging and emails to various people" to begin to untangle the mystery. Eventually the Santa Fe buyer called Bowland because as she states: "he said he felt pretty awful about it."

Awful because he had purchased the painting from Bowland's former Santa Fe dealer for $37,500 dollars and he still owed six grand on the painting and was in the process of discovering that he was in possession of a bill of sale for a stolen painting.

How did all this happen?

Here's what Bowland says:

Three years ago I was in a group show at the Klaudia Marr Gallery in Santa Fe, NM. I found out during the short time that I was in her show that my painting had been accepted at the NPG for the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition.

So Bowland arranged for the NPG to pick up the painting from the gallery in Santa Fe.

She continues:

A few months later... [the NPG] called and told me that Klaudia Marr wished to have the painting as it was hanging in the NPG attributed to a man she said had bought the painting or was in the process of buying the painting. I told [the NPG] absolutely not.

I had never received one dime for the painting and had no expectations of receiving money for the piece. [The NPG] called again and said that [they] well understood and... we spoke for a bit about the horror of thieving dealers. By now the word had gone out that the Marr gallery was stealing from its artists. She had been running the gallery as a ponzi scheme and when the bottom fell out of the market she started lying to people and stealing their art. A friend in the gallery had contacted me and told me this and I had moved very fast to send a shipper in to grab my art. At the time I felt quite fortunate. My friend lost 9 paintings to her. But with this call from [the NPG] I felt that I was safe in the protective hands of the Smithsonian and what could be safer?

Apparently Bowland was wrong.

As the NPG exhibition ended, she notes that the NPG "could not reach me on the telephone. I was in Amsterdam for two weeks." Bowland also notes that the NPG "tried to reach me twice on an email account that has not functioned in almost two years."

Bowland never worried too much because she had received plenty of emails from the NPG (to her correct email address) on other issues: "numerous emails from three separate people there." She had also received "numerous mailings from the Museum at my address, an address I have held for 20 years."

At some point, after trying to contact Bowland on the phone while she was in Amsterdam, and via email to an old email account, but never via regular mail, and for unknown reasons, the NPG contacted the Santa Fe dealer, clearly looking for a place to ship the painting. Apparently having never emailed Bowland to her correct email address, or spoken to her on the phone, or sent her a note in the mail. Bowland adds that:

Ms. Marr seized the opportunity to steal the painting and told the Museum to send the art on to the man from whom she had taken money for the painting. When talking to him later on the phone he told me that the picture showed up "out of the blue" that he had "long ago written the painting off as a loss when he could no longer find the dealer who had gone to ground."

So far, from this story, it seems to be clear from these alleged facts, that the criminal here is possibly an art dealer allegedly intent on stealing a work of art. An art dealer bold enough to allegedly involve a federal museum in the theft.

Bowland notes that:

the part of this that still stuns me the most, however, is that the NPG is agreeing that I was the owner of the painting but is not trying to help me retrieve it or offering to pay me for the loss. They will not even contact law enforcement to try to prevent this from happening to others.

Because this theft crossed state lines, it seems to fit the requirements for the FBI's Art Theft Program. But even that has yielded little hope for Bowland. She notes that

When I contacted the DA [District Attorney] in Santa Fe they told me to go to the FBI. I did so, but I am astonished that they care so little for a thief operating in their own state.

The FBI may still get involved in this, although from what they told Bowland:

They are interested in larger numbers than my ... dollar theft... A very nice young woman at the FBI has also basically told me that my numbers are too small but she is going to try for me.

It appears to me from the facts that I have, that:

1. The only alleged criminal here (so far) from the facts as presented is the art dealer in New Mexico seizing the opportunity to allegedly steal a painting.

2. Someone at the NPG got bamboozled by the dealer.

3. The buyer thought that he had lost over $30,000 when suddenly the painting shows up out of nowhere with an NPG provenance.

4. The artist is not getting answers or help from anyone.

5. There's a former art dealer in Santa Fe who needs a little attention from Law Enforcement to clarify this issue, and I am shocked that for a city whose tourist industry is so aligned with its arts presence, LE is so lax in protecting the rights of artists.

Furthermore, if all these facts are correct, what I don't understand is why the NPG, as a federal institution, is not cooperating with the artist to assist Bowland in dealing with this alleged crime. Why are they not communicating with her? Why are they not helping her in dealing with a recalcitrant FBI? After all, it's not just Bowland who got ripped off, but also some innocent person at the NPG who got allegedly snowed by an alleged criminal to assist in the commission of an alleged art theft, and all the tax payers who fund the NPG and who are unwilling participants in the nauseating alleged act of ripping off a damned good artist.

I've asked the NPG to comment on these questions. So far the path to the right answer seems simple: assist Bowland with the Santa Fe DA and/or the FBI to make the only possible criminal in this story accountable.

Bowland ends by stating:

I am crushed by this. Never in one million years could I have imagined that participating in the show at the NPG could result in such pain and loss.

Neither could I. Ball is on your court NPG; do the right thing.

Wanna go to an artist talk tonight?

The join "a pop up project" for a memorable artist talk starting at 6 pm with Margaret Bowland, whose work in the current show there is my favorite. She will be discussing her Murakami Wedding series, an artwork of which is currently featured at National Portrait Gallery and her series of powerful Thorny Crown drawings, exclusively available at the pop-up project exhibition.

Artist Talk and Reception
Wednesday, May 13, 2010
6 pm
625 E St, NW
Washington, DC 20004

The place to be tonight is...



a pop-up project has it s grand opening tonight and hosts the first of many pop-up group exhibitions, lectures and events at venues throughout the DC area. For its inaugural exhibition a pop-up project will open I Dream Awake from March 18 to May 28, 2010 in the former Numark Gallery space located in Penn Quarter at 625-627 E St NW.


I Dream Awake is a curated selection of works that presents original artist expressions which explore the link between awakened realities and unconscious dreams.

The exhibition includes artwork in various media by New York artists, Mikel Glass, Kenichi Hoshine and Margaret Bowland; Los Angeles artists Vonn Sumner and Susan Burnstine; and local artists Rosemary Feit Covey, Laurel Hausler, Lizzie Newton and Tim Tate.

The formal opening reception with the artists in attendance is tonight, Friday, March 26th from 6 - 9pm.

See ya there!

A Formidable New Presence

When I first reported the news about a new art space to open at the former Numark Gallery space in DC, some of the emails that I received back generally said something along the lines of "about time!" After all, the award winning space (the space won its architectural designers an award for gallery design when it opened a handful of years ago) had been empty since Numark's sudden and unexpected closing a couple of years ago.

I dropped by a pop up project, which is the new art space at the former Numark space at 625-627 E St NW, in Washington, DC, and I am relieved to report that, judging from their first exhibition, and from meeting the enthusiastic and experienced owner, I am going to predict that the District is about to have a formidable new visual arts presence in its cultural tapestry.

The owner is Amy Morton, an experienced curator with a lot of background working with auction houses, art associations, and galleries in Los Angeles, CA, Boston, MA and the DC area. As many gallery owners are, she is also a collector, and is sure to bring her own collecting sensibilities to the mix. Unlike some gallery owners, Morton brings a refreshing, bright, and smiling personality which is far removed from the cool, aloof demeanor that some art dealers like to portray. And it is clear to see that her personality is also displayed in some of the subtle innovations that she is bringing to the gallery business; more on that later.

The inaugural exhibition, titled "I Dream Awake", brings together some of the artists either collected by Morton or whose work she has followed and admired over the years. The exhibition includes artwork in various media by New York artists, Mikel Glass, Kenichi Hoshine and Margaret Bowland; Los Angeles artists Vonn Sumner and Susan Burnstine; and DC area artists Rosemary Feit Covey, Laurel Hausler, Lizzie Newton and Tim Tate.

Immediately upon entering the gallery the visitor is confronted by what can best be described a sculptural painting installation by Mikel Glass. A Victorian frame, surrounded by original radio tubes and assorted seminal electric paraphernalia, hosts a painting which is a copy of Richard Rothwell's 1840 portrait of Mary Shelley.

The steam lines, antique doll's head and other assorted brass found objects, which of course include a brass Frankenstein head, gives the viewer an immediate clue about the work which is confirmed by the title: Machine in the Garden - Steampunk Shelley.

Glass explains:

A re-telling of the Frankenstein myth from a feminist perspective inspired Steampunk Shelley. In The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein, Elizabeth and Victor were raised together from childhood in order that they form an alchemic union that would allow Victor to achieve his full potential. Along the way, however, Elizabeth is beset by the strenuous limitations imposed upon her by a rigid, male-dominated society which eventually drives her into the arms of a Wicca coven.

In the original Frankenstein, Elizabeth had many autobiographical qualities of Shelley. In Steampunk Shelly I represent Shelley herself as Elizabeth. Her torment in the re-telling had much to do with the fact that, as in Shelley’s life, Elizabeth struggled to conceive a child. She finally succeeds, but ironically simultaneously to Victor’s scientific breakthrough – he realizes that he needs the tissue from a living baby to animate his creature. The moment depicted in the painting is intended to evoke the terrible choice that confronts Elizabeth: loyalty to the husband she worships versus personal fulfillment.

The background imagery and the frame are inspired by the Steampunk aesthetic, which is a combination of Victorian imagery with industrial technology. The frame is intended as an homage to Frankenstein and the society that he came from which, unfortunately, repressed women. The frame and all of its attributes were scavenged from various sources. For example, the valve that distributes the steam to each portal was salvaged from a defunct cow-milking machine. Frankenstein’s head was found in a scrap metal yard.

Long before I ever set brush to canvas my roots in art were germinated in the nurturing soil of found object sculpture. After moving to New York City for art school about twenty years ago, I pursued painting for logistical reasons - it took up less space. And while my heart never strayed from the abundant objects I coveted all around me in the city, I focused on trying to represent them in two dimensions. Over the years I’ve only infrequently allowed myself the indulgent transgression of pursuing expression through sculpture and performance. But Steampunk Shelley potentially represents a turning for me where I am comfortably exploring the intersection between all three. It’s a comfortable place for me, and I hope to spend a great deal of time there

I depress the brass Frankenstein head, hold it down a second or two, and the piece, like the monster, comes alive.

Wheels turn, the gas tubes light up, and then unexpectedly, we discover individual steam portals that deliver soft plumes of steam to the painting. It is a riveting homage, and I am sure that sooner or later, someone during the exhibition will include the triumphant "It's Alive!" Frankensteinian shout that is the climax of the monster's birth.


The main gallery is dominated by the works of Margaret Bowland (whose work was a finalist for the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition and is currently also on display at the National Portrait Gallery). The large pastel pieces show not only a remarkable technical facility made even more remarkable by the sheer scale of her works, but also an enviable mastery of a deep psychological agenda delivered by her works.


Another Thorny Crown. Margaret Bowland. Charcoal and pastel on rag paper, 60x48 inches.
The abundance of visual references makes this work a lesson in history and also a critical pitfall in trying to decipher and understand all of them. The child's gaze is hard and well beyond her years. They are old eyes and they are the key that opens up the dialogue to the other clues in the piece: the cotton crown wrapped around her head in a blunt reference to the crown of thorns worn by Jesus during His crucifixion. Cotton was the key driver for the slave trade in the American South; the white face painted on the child is an even harsher aim point at some of the racial realities and perceptions of a Black culture in a White society.

This is mostly an American painting. It is anchored deeply in American sensibilities and history, but it is also a powerful ancestral reminder of all Africans in the New World. Had this painting been done by a Caribbean artist, the child would have been crowned by a crown made up of razor-sharp sugar cane leaves, but the memories in her gaze would be the same. It is a brilliant narrative piece, and by far my favorite piece in the show.

There is also some excellent work by the several local area artists in the show. A new video piece by Tim Tate is sure to be a hit with animation buffs, and his classic "I hear the Siren's call" remains one of the sexiest videos around. Rosemary Feit Covey exhibits a terrific set of her better-known engravings, including her signature piece "Nkonde", which is almost out of print in an edition of 60.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, Morton's open and bright personality comes through in the way in which she has presented the work. The gallery is hung minimally, without overcrowding the work, but it is in the way that information about the work is presented, that she comes through even a little more open and clearly innovative.

I have never been a fan of hiding information in art galleries (such as the whole way of using pins or tiny numbers rather than labels to identify the work). In fact I would submit that the more information that is afforded the viewer, without the viewer having to ask for it, the higher the chances that a "connection" to the work will be made.

Morton uses labels, and that's good, and lots of galleries also use labels to identify the work, the artist, the media and the price. And then she goes beyond that. In addition to the title labels, small circular labels also inform us a little more about the artist. Information such as "This artist is currently on exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery" or "This artist is in the collection of such and such museum."

There's more. Slim floor displays hold cards that add more information about a particular piece. They are clearly a derivative of the well-known museum "wall text" information, but cleverly accommodated to gallery size and space. I think that this is a superb idea and that it will have payoffs for the gallery.

The formal grand opening reception (with the artists in attendance) will be held tomorrow, Friday, March 26th from 6 - 9pm. Don't miss it - it will mark the debut of an important new art presence in our region.

See ya there!

Contemporary Art Projects Grand Opening on Friday

Remember that I told you that the former award-winning (for gallery design) Numark space was about to be re-used as a gallery space?

Amy Morton of Morton Fine Art will have the grand opening for a pop-up project, a series of innovative, curated art exhibitions and events that “pop-up” at various locations throughout Washington, DC at that space this coming Friday.


The first exhibition, I Dream Awake runs from March 18 to May 28, 2010 at the former Numark Gallery space located in Penn Quarter at 625-627 E St NW.

I Dream Awake is a curated selection of works that presents original artist expressions which explore the link between awakened realities and unconscious dreams. The exhibition includes artwork in various media by New York artists, Mikel Glass, Kenichi Hoshine and Margaret Bowland; Los Angeles artists Vonn Sumner and Susan Burnstine; and local artists Rosemary Feit Covey, Laurel Hausler, Lizzie Newton and Tim Tate.

The formal opening reception with the artists in attendance will be held on Friday, March 26th from 6 - 9pm.

Contemporary Art Projects to Debut

Remember that I told you that the former Numark space was about to be re-used as a gallery space?

Amy Morton of Morton Fine Art introduces a pop-up project, a series of innovative, curated art exhibitions and events that “pop-up” at various locations throughout Washington, DC.

The concept for a pop-up project evolved from Morton’s desire to introduce strong and relevant contemporary artists to the Washington, DC area in a fresh and exciting format. The project emphasizes the development and exposure of high-quality contemporary artworks in innovative settings and locations. a pop-up project aims to develop and promote local DC talent alongside national talent.

a pop-up project will host pop-up group exhibitions, lectures and events at venues throughout the DC area. For its inaugural exhibition a pop-up project will open I Dream Awake from March 18 to May 28, 2010 in the former Numark Gallery space located in Penn Quarter at 625-627 E St NW.

I Dream Awake is a curated selection of works that presents original artist expressions which explore the link between awakened realities and unconscious dreams. The exhibition includes artwork in various media by New York artists, Mikel Glass, Kenichi Hoshine and Margaret Bowland; Los Angeles artists Vonn Sumner and Susan Burnstine; and local artists Rosemary Feit Covey, Laurel Hausler, Lizzie Newton and Tim Tate.

The formal opening reception with the artists in attendance will be held on Friday, March 26th from 6 - 9pm.

Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition 2009

This week the National Portrait Gallery will announce the winners of the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition 2009 at an opening reception taking place on the evening of Oct. 22. The exhibition will open to the public Friday, Oct. 23 and will remain on view through August 22, 2010.

The show has been juried from 3,300 entries, down to 49 finalists from around the country. Of those 49, seven have been selected for the short list of cash prizes. The top award will win $25,000 as well as a separate commission from the Portrait Gallery. (In May, the museum unveiled Mrs. Eunice Kennedy Shriver’s portrait by David Lenz, Lenz won first prize in 2006). The exhibition will display the works of the 49 finalists.

“The second Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition represents a significant milestone for the National Portrait Gallery,” said Martin Sullivan, director of the museum. “We opened the entries to all visual arts media and received a wonderful response.”

The competition happens only once every three years and demonstrates the new ways artists are working with the figure and creating portraits. External jurors for the competition were Wanda M. Corn, professor emerita in art history at Stanford University; Kerry James Marshall, artist; Brian O’Doherty, artist and critic; and Peter Schjeldahl, art critic for The New Yorker. Jurors from the National Portrait Gallery were Martin E. Sullivan, director; Carolyn K. Carr, deputy director and chief curator; and Brandon Brame Fortune, curator of painting and sculpture.

Portrait Competition Finalists and Shortlisted Artists (the asterisk denotes the artists on the shortlist):

Mequitta Ahuja, Houston
Jason Shaw Alexander, Los Angeles
Jen Bandini, Queens, N.Y.
Margaret Bowland, Brooklyn, N.Y.*
Benita Carr, Atlanta
Laura Chasman, Roslindale, Mass.
Mark Cummings, Newport Beach, Calif.
Yolanda del Amo, Brooklyn, N.Y.*
Armando Dominguez, Miami
Jenny Dubnau, Jackson Heights, N.Y.
Daniel Mark Duffy, Newtown, Conn.
David Eichenberg, Toledo, Ohio
Gaela Erwin, Louisville, Ky.*
Chambliss Giobbi, New York
David Gracie, Omaha, Neb.
Leor Grady, New York
Anne Harris, Riverside, Ill.
Patricia Horing, Larchmont, N.Y.
Kate Sammons, Los Angeles
Philip Schirmer, Sargentville, Maine
Justin Shaw, Lincoln, Neb.
Satomi Shirai, Astoria, N.Y.
Michael A. Smith, Ottsville, Pa.
Ben Tolman, Washington, D.C.
Jim Torok, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Anna Killian, Pensacola, Fla.
Erika Larsen, Hoboken, N.J.
David Dodge Lewis, Farmville, Va.
Lisa Lindvay, Chicago
Francesco Lombardo, Marshall, N.C.
Perin Mahler, Grand Rapids, Mich.
John Manion, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Bruce McKaig, Washington, D.C.
Pavel Melecky, Arlington, Texas
Sam Messer, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Paul Mindell, Norwalk, Conn.
Matthew Mitchell, Amherst, Mass.
Samantha Mitchell, New York
Austin Parkhill, Arvada, Colo.
Sonia Paulino, Los Angeles
Cliffton Peacock, Charleston, S.C.
Stanley Rayfield, Richmond, Va.*
Emil Robinson, Cincinnati*
Margaret Trezevant, Tampa, Fla.
Lien Truong, Eureka, Calif.
Clarissa Payne Uvegi, New York
Adam Vinson, Jenkintown, Pa.*
Dave Woody, Fort Collins, Colo.*
John Randall Younger, Charlottesville, Va.

I am familiar with the work of the two DC area artists on the list, Ben Tolman and Bruce McKaig. In fact, both of them have exhibited at the Fraser Gallery back in the days when I was a co-owner of those two galleries.