Kennicott on 30 Americans

I've been digesting Philip Kennicott's ‘30 Americans’: A challenging study of identity, currently on exhibit at the Corcoran.

As Kennicott is not the easiest writer to read, this digesting process has taken me a few days and at least one trip to the dictionary, an odd thing, I think, for someone with three degrees and a MENSA-qualifying perfect SAT score many years ago.

My thoughts on the article start with the issue that I think that because nearly every writer in this town, including art writers, are somehow cast in the shadow of Woodward and Bernstein, almost every writer in this town approaches nearly every story in this town as a possible Watergate. I like the way that I managed to sneak "in this town" multiple times in that sentence.

Because the DMV is a "town" in the smallish sense of that word; no Gotham or Metropolis like word will be used ever to describe the DMV, where everybody and everyone knows your name... right? Cheers...

But I meander.

It was sooooo predictable to see the mouth-watering effect upon art writers such as Kennicott (and others to come), to try to find a less than ethical reason for this exhibition.

And thus we get:

And that raises the issue of the second problem with “30 Americans,” the appearance of a conflict of interest in presenting a private collection at a prominent museum, especially when a financial transaction has happened between the parties. Is this a quid pro quo between the Corcoran and the Rubells that serves to boost the value of a private collection?

Never mind that:

The Rubells have categorically denied any quid pro quo, and Kristin Guiter, spokeswoman for the Corcoran, says “the two are completely unrelated.” Discussion of the “30 Americans” show began well before any plans to sell the Randall School, she says.

But Lenny, some of you are probably saying, he also admits that

A few things militate against a cynical view of the question. First, the work on display is important and needs to be seen. Second, the Rubells probably bring more prestige to the relationship than the Corcoran, which has been damaged by financial and institutional mismanagement over the past decade. Third, museums would hardly exist without courting the favor of private collectors.

Militate? ahem...

This is such a challenge for so many people around here: to write an art review about the art or artists, without a need for militation (ahem, ahem) of any sort. And if one militates (ahem, ahem, ahem) against this particular writer's cynicism, what else is there?

Envy, elitism, rancor?

See where this led? Now I need to militate my own nastiness, which is the result of a visceral reaction that screams: Not everything has a hidden, unethical root! (Note to PK: Observe how I avoided the temptation to use "Raison d'être" - in other words, I militated the temptation to sound like a cultural egghead.

Not every story is a potential Watergate.

Read PK's article here.

Things we learned in New York

It never ceases to amaze me how often I run into stories of what I thought were ethical gallerists only to discover otherwise from artists.

One of the most common things that unethical art dealers do at art fairs is to inflate prices. This allows them to "deal" with interested buyers, and offer them discounts on the art. Facing galleries that inflate their prices up to 40% or more... in order to then appear to offer great deals, ethical gallerists then have to deal with collectors "used" to getting 40% price chops.

"I decided a while back to just add 40% more to my prices," confessed a dealer in New York last week. "I got tired of explaining to buyers that I couldn't give them a 40% discount."

Feh.

Then there's the very cool NYC photographer who has exhibited several times in DC. She relates the story of how her DC dealer sold some of her work, then decided to move from DC, and told her that he couldn't "afford to pay her." A few years later she's still waiting to get paid. "Now I just tell everyone that I know to stay away from this gallery," she adds.

On Strike from the Huffington Post

Just received the below from Bill Lasarow, Publisher and Editor of ArtScene / Visual Art Source

When ArtScene and Visual Art Source was invited to become a Huffington Post blogger last year I, as publisher and editor of both publications, understood that the company paid nothing. We surveyed our writers’ reactions to assess their willingness to have their material reposted there for no additional pay. Visual Art Source, ArtScene and art ltd. (http://www.visualartsource.com) form an umbrella art publishing company that is actually quite large by the standards of our very specialized field. The tens of thousands of readers and online users that we boast, however, are miniscule compared to the 26 million visitors per month that the Huffington Post currently draws.

Yet we are now going on strike. For now, at least, no more content from us will appear on the Huffington Post.

And just like the corporate titans of the American Right, it would come as no surprise if Ms Huffington, whom I am certain has a good heart and only the best intentions, were to assume the obvious position: Who needs these people anyway? They are not even employees.

Nonetheless, we shall remain on strike until these two demands are met. First, a pay schedule must be proposed and steps initiated to implement it for all contributing writers and bloggers. Second, paid promotional material must no longer be posted alongside editorial content; a press release or exhibition catalogue essay is fundamentally different from editorial content and must be either segregated and indicated as such, or not published at all.

I am also calling upon all others now contributing free content, particularly original content to the Huffington Post to also join us in this strike.

We think it is incumbent upon the many writers and bloggers to form a negotiating partnership with Huffington/AOL in order to pursue these and other important matters so as to professionalize this relationship. It is not entirely Ms Huffington’s fault that so many talented professionals have been willing to accept the company’s terms on an “in kind” basis. Surely most do so in the hopes of achieving their own fame and fortune thanks to the great exposure that Huffington Post potentially offers. Unfortunately, such participants are only complicit in a relationship that fails the ethical smell test. And those who are already nationally known figures who will never need to be concerned about pay scales, shame on you, you should know better.

It is unethical to expect trained and qualified professionals to contribute quality content for nothing. It is unethical to cannibalize the investment of other organizations who bear the cost of compensation and other overhead without payment for the usage of their content. It is extremely unethical to not merely blur but eradicate the distinction between the independent and informed voice of news and opinion and the voice of a shill.

None of this is illegal, only unethical and oh so very hypocritical, so Ms Huffington if you insist do carry on, by all means. However we are taking this action, with the full knowledge of our contributing writers and editors, in the belief that your better angels will enable you to do the right thing. We stand ready to provide whatever helpful input we can.

For further information please contact Bill Lasarow, Publisher and Co-Editor of ArtScene / Visual Art Source, (213) 482-4724, artscene@artscenecal.com / billl@visualartsource.com

Letter to City Paper

The current issue of the Washington City Paper has my letter to the editor responding to Kriston Capps deceptive article published in the previous issue. The letter reads:

The errors and journalist lack of integrity of “The C List: Will Lenny Campello’s 100 Washington Artists Serve Its Subjects or Its Author,” are too many to list in this letter; I will concentrate on the three major ones. To start, Capps lies when he writes that in my blog (DC Art News) I have been “writing for years about artists that he admires (and represents).” A simple check of my blog posts will reveal that 95% of those artists have never been represented by me.

Capps then quotes me out of context when he writes that I said “I have zero commercial relationship with them.” He follows that quote by writing “Not wholly true.” I know of no other meaning of “not wholly true” other than “it’s a lie.” What an ethical journalist would have written is: “But I have zero commercial relationship with them,” Campello says referring to the Fraser Gallery and their artists.” I never lied to Capps, and revealed to him all my artists relationships. I am insulted and embarrassed that he made it appear as if I lied and he “discovered” my lie.

The worst offense in this article, and one that should get the attention of the CP’s editors and publishers and all of Capps’ employers, is the fact that Capps purposefully omitted information which would have destroyed his argument about my ethical issues with this book.

Even though he knew that I had placed a disclaimer in the book, and referred all artists to other dealers so that no referral ever came back to me, he never mentioned the steps that I took to eliminate any perception of conflict of interest. That is unethical and malicious.

Considering that in past CP articles (not once, but twice), Capps own journalistic ethics have been questioned, and considering that he was once dismissed from the CP for issues related to one of his articles, he has huge cojones writing about my ethics when his are the ones on the record as lacking integrity.

Not good enough

Kriston Capps responds to my defense responding to his his highly flawed and deceptive article on the 100 Washington Artists book and I. He writes:

Seventh-generation Texan, in fact. There are many Mexican Americans in my family, but I don't have much Latino blood in me. And I'm a fanboy for Star Trek and Marvel Comics.

Okay, a couple of points:

On Fraser: In my article I write, "As a curator and a dealer, he’s shown 100 Washington Artists selections Lida Moser, Andrew Wodzianski, Tim Tate, Michael Janis, Joseph Barbaccia, and many others," which is correct. I note that in D.C., he's primarily shown these artists through Fraser--also true. But I did not write that Fraser represents these artists. Somewhere in the editorial process, "Lida Moser" became "Linda Moser," a typo that was either my fault or editorial's.

No way did I fabricate any quote or bend the context to fit the narrative.

More broadly, I think it is a misreading to say that I've fingered Campello in a conspiracy or scheme to profit. I speculate that that opportunity is probably not even there. Rather, I say that Campello has conflicts of interest with regard to artists he works with and artists he is covering in this book. I cited the Alida Anderson/art fair example because it was recent and clear (and because Campello told me that). It doesn't destroy my argument that he skipped last year's Affordable Art Fair. His financial relationships with specific artists continues and will continue in the future.

Again, I acknowledge that Campello has kept nothing hidden. I don't say that it's a scheme to make money. The takeaway is that a conflict of interest doesn't bother him and isn't keeping him from writing a survey of D.C. artists.

Campello writes, "He does shoot himself in the foot by later acknowledging that I did tell him that I have current commercial interests in some artists." I do not see how reporting that constitutes shooting myself in the foot.

Campello says I "strangle the truth" by saying he blogs about artists he admires (and represents), but that is correct. I don't say they are one and the same.

No more hairsplitting from me. I would refer back to my story on all the other points.

Let's examine this response in detail.

Capps writes that: "No way did I fabricate any quote or bend the context to fit the narrative." But he did bend the context. The quote in question is: "I have zero commercial relationship with them."

This quote is in the context of our discussion on the past and former Fraser Gallery artists in general that we were discussing in our telephone conversation. He even listed a few artists by name at one point and that quote was in response to that context. I then immediately followed that by listing the very few artists that I do have a relationship with - which Kriston admits in his response "I acknowledge that Campello has kept nothing hidden" - but in the article he follows the "I have zero commercial relationship with them" quote with "That’s not wholly true." He then details all the facts that I revealed to him without telling his readers that it was I who revealed that information to him.

If you follow the thread of the writing, the implication is that I lied to him, unless someone knows of another meaning for "not wholly true." Had he written in the article what he wrote in his response ("Campello has kept nothing hidden") then this part of my argument would have been a moot point. But to make that clear in his article would have seriously undermined his goal to make this project seem full of conflicts of interest.

I also told Capps of the safety valves that I had implemented to minimize the potential conflicts of interest with the artists in question. I'll repeat myself: Every artist in the book who is represented by a gallery or dealer is referred back to that gallery or dealer. In the case of artists associated with me, every single contact info points back to another dealer who represents that artist. Not a single artist in this book is associated in the book with me. In fact, if any "business" is to be derived from this book, I am sending the business to everyone but me. Capps knows this, but conveniently avoided discussing that. The reason is simple: it demolishes his implied undercurrent about my ethical transgressions in having artists in the book that I'm associated with.

He shoots himself in the foot because first he implies that "That's not wholly true" as in a lie, but then later reveals that I did tell him that I have a relationship with a tiny percentage of the artists in the book. So he has told you that I told him that I have zero relationships with any artists and I also told him that I do have a relationship with some artists. It is the flow of the sentences that don't follow a logical path other than to imply to that I tried to hide my relationship from him.

And he does strangle the truth when he writes in the article: "As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (and represents)." Clearly this was meant to incorrectly suggest that I only write and admire artists that I represent. In his response he says: "I don't say they're one and the same." See how a dishonest employment of English to convey one meaning - the one the author wants to convey - works?

What an honest journalist would have written should have been: "As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (and some of whom he represents)."

You see the difference between the truth and unethical journalism designed to carry the author's agenda forward?

In another response in reference to my anger at being called a "fanboy", Capps tells me that:

But to say that I kicked my story with a slur to insult you personally -- or that City Paper would publish that kind of attack -- is not true. As another commenter says, it's a word that comes from comic-book and nerd culture that suggests extreme enthusiasm for a subject.

Fair enough, but I'll say it again: regardless of the actual meaning of "fanboy", the intent was the same: to diminish and reduce. He could have written "fan" and accomplish the same point without the denigration to a juvenile status that "fanboy" brings to those readers not in tune with the arcane meanings of the sci-fi and comic book culture.

Capps doesn't respond of his denigration of the publisher. In the article he picked as examples some weird titles from a selection of 100s of art books that this respected publisher has offered in the 50-plus years that they've been publishing art books. This is a highly respected publisher that is taking a huge chance financing this book, its marketing and exposure at zero cost to the artists or anyone.

It all comes down to choice of words and the intended meaning that the author wants to accomplish.

What bugs me the most out this whole episode is that I really tried so fucking hard to bust my ass to cover every possible angle dealing with conflicts of interest; that I've spent some many hundreds of hours putting together this volume with the real Pollyanna goal of doing something good for the DC art scene; that I tried so hard to focus all possible future "financial rewards" to other art dealers or to the artists themselves... and still, after all that, in the end a piece of shoddy attack journalism still tries to focus most of the attention on conflicts of interest without pointing out the steps that I took to remove them.

For that there's no semantic excuse other than a flaw of character and a scary disregard for ethics. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, right? and one lesson that Capps will learn from this episode is that you reap what you sow.

Glasshouse shattered

From Kriston Capps in 2005:

"It's bitchy of me to say— and I don't know the extent to which Lenny Campello of DC Art News contributes or what Cyndi Spain [the DCist Arts Editor] has to say on the subject— but I twitch whenever I see a feature with Lenny's name attached on DCist about work on display at the gallery he operates. I don't doubt the conviction Lenny clearly feels about the art he represents or enjoys, and I don't think that it's unreasonable that he writes about artists he represents on his own blog. But you really can't don the critic's cap when you're a producer in the community."

Back then three years ago I didn't think that Capps was right, but just in case I quit immediately contributing gallery openings information ( which is the only data and info that I ever contributed) to DCist.

But now Washington City Paper art critic and many other outlets' contributor Kriston Capps has become a "producer" himself when he curates the current show at Project 4 in DC.

Will I twitch now or whenever I see a future Project 4 feature in the Washington City Paper or any of the other freelance outlets that Capps writes for?

I don't think so, because inside me I think that those outlets, like DCist was in 2005, and it is now, know how to separate themselves from unethical procedures. And because Project 4 is a terrific gallery in the DC art scene and deserves attention. And I sort of hoped that Capps would have had the same "inside me" feeling about the data that I was contributing to DCist back then... but he didn't and perhaps rightly so, lowered the ethical limbo pole for "art producers" who are also art critics or writers.

Inside me, I know this is not 100% the case, and that the art universe has plenty of room for critics who want to be curators and vice versa. And it is not Project 4's fault or the WCP's, or any of the other places that print Capps' eloquent words, that this unwarranted ethical attention has been brought onto to them by Capps' actions, as it wasn't DCist's faults that the unethical spotlight caused by my gallery openings contributions was focused onto them in 2005 by Capps.

But words count, and we Cubans tend to have long memories, and I recall being pointed out for something that was almost smelling unethical in Capps' words, without the courage to say so, and so I took the high road and quit contributing to DCist.

Right away.

Not writing reviews for DCist -- mind you... I never wrote a review for DCist as some less than accurate bloggers erroneously reported -- but just being associated with DCist at all... just in case Capps' ethical testing strip might have a tiny chance of being right...

But now I think that it is time to throw a stone at that Kristonian ethical glasshouse, and put Kriston to the same limbo test that he put me three years ago when he was not a "producer" as he is now as a curator for a gallery show in the city where several of the freelance outlets that he writes for... ahhh... cover.

"It's bitchy of me to say — and I don't know the extent to which Kriston Capps contributes or what Mark Athitakis [the Washington City Paper Arts Editor] has to say on the subject — but I twitch whenever I see a feature in the City Paper about work on display at the gallery that employed Kriston as a curator. I don't doubt the conviction Kriston clearly feels about the art he curates or enjoys, and I don't think that it's unreasonable that he writes about artists [that] he curates on his own blog. But you really can't don the critic's cap when you're a producer in the community."

I was never, ever a critic for DCist.

Thus, if it was an issue for me to contribute multi-gallery opening data to DCist while being an art "producer," then it definitely is an issue for Capps to contribute to the City Paper or his other art writing outlets that may cover the District, as a writer... while now being a commercial gallery curator, which falls neatly into the set of "producer."

And please do not try to justify it as curators are not producers.

What is the solution?

Sounds like it would make a great topic for discussion at an art panel or over a few beers.... first round on me.

DCAC? AU? AAC?

Bad things galleries do to artists

Unethical galleries will take in a piece of artwork by an artist, and when the price is discussed, the gallery says: "What's the price?" and the artist says: "$1000" The gallery nods OK and the artist leaves, knowing that if sold, he'll get $500 (most commercial galleries charge 50% commission -- in NYC some are as high as 70%). The gallery then sells the piece, but for $2,000, sends the artist a check for $500 and pockets the extra $1,000. That is why artists should insist on having a contract with a gallery, and the contract must specifically address that the artist will get 50% of the actual sale price.

Bad things artists to do galleries

A reputable gallery gives an artist a show, and goes through all the various expenses associated with doing so (rent, electricity, staff salaries, publicity, ads, post cards, opening reception catering, etc.) So far the gallery has put forth a considerable investment in presenting the artist's works. An interested novice collector meets the artist at the opening and expresses interest (to the artist) in buying some of his artwork. The artist, wishing to stiff the gallery for their commission says: "See me after the show and I'll sell it to you directly and save myself the gallery commission." This is not only unethical, but it's also guaranteed to ruin the artist's reputation in the city, as these things always come out in the wash, and soon no gallery will exhibit any work by this artist.

Trouble in Lynchburg

Yesterday I noticed this post in Jeffry Cudlin's blog and today I received the massive news release below, which I've decided to post here, rather than edit it, as it tells a fairly complete story from the side doing the complaining:

Suit Filed to Prevent Randolph College from Selling Valuable Donated Art Collection

Sale Would Violate Donor Intent, Violate Code of Ethics, Sidestep the College’s Financial Problems, and Further Damage Enrollment

Lynchburg, VA – Eleven “interveners” asked a Virginia court today to stop Randolph College’s unethical and unnecessary attempt to sell off portions of its nationally recognized American art collection.

The works at issue were originally purchased by Randolph-Macon Woman’s College (R-MWC) with assets from the trust of Louise Jordan Smith, the college’s first art professor. Randolph-Macon Woman’s College became Randolph College this year when it became coed, a controversial action being challenged in court by students, donors and alumnae.

Named as interveners in the new legal challenge, outlined in a “Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Intervene,” are Louise Jordan Smith’s heirs, several college donors, alumnae, and students, the former head of the college’s Museum Studies program, the former head of the Maier Museum, where the collection is housed, and several other interested parties. They are:

• Frances Pendleton Elliott and Eleanor Pendleton Monahan: Mrs. Elliott and Mrs. Monahan, her sister, are believed to be Louise Jordan Smith’s only living relatives. Miss Smith was their mother’s first cousin.
• Margaret Williams and Amanda Sandos: Ms. Williams and Ms. Sandos are both seniors and art majors at the college.
• Ellen Agnew: Ms. Agnew worked at the Maier Museum for 23 years as Curator, Associate Director and Director, and is an alumna of Randolph-Macon Woman’s College. She resigned earlier this year over the college’s actions in this matter.
• Laura Katzman: Dr. Katzman served as the Director of the Museum Studies Program and Professor of Art at the college from 1995-2007. She resigned earlier this year over the college’s actions in this matter.
• Sandra and Paul Whitehead. Mr. and Mrs. Whitehead are financial supporters of and frequent visitors to the Maier Museum. In particular, Mr. Whitehead donated significant funds to the museum in 1997 to help it purchase an Andrew Wyeth painting in honor of his wife. (The Whiteheads have said they will make no additional donations to the college unless the litigation is resolved favorably.)
• Roberta Scrivener. Ms. Scrivener is a Lynchburg, Va. public school teacher who believes her ability to teach art to her children will be irreparably harmed if the Smith Art is sold and Maier Museum collection broken up.
• Roy Clinton “Bud” Johns. Mr. Johns’ and his wife have made substantial contributions to the college of both money and art. (He also has said he will make no additional contributions and will remove the college from his will if it continues its improper efforts to break up the valuable collection.)
• Anne Adams Robertson Massie. A distinguished artist in her own right, Ms. Massie is a Lynchburg native, a Randolph-Macon Woman’s College alumna, a member of the Maier Museum Advisory Board, a regular and substantial donor to the Museum, a former Museum docent, and a Fellow and Trustee of the Virginia Center for the Creative Arts.

The 36 paintings acquired with Smith Trust funds include some of the best-known works in the college’s Maier Museum of Art collection. The 3,400 piece collection is considered one of the finest college collections in the country, among the finest collections of American art in the country, and a top cultural attraction in South Central Virginia.

“Miss Smith – as the College admits – donated money to Randolph-Macon Woman’s College to purchase art with the explicit instruction that the art become part of a permanent collection for the College,” said Anne Yastremski, Executive Director of Preserve Educational Choice, an organization working to save Randolph-Macon Woman’s College. “Her will was very clear and the college’s efforts to sell the art are a clear-cut violation of donor intent and the terms of her gift.”

The college’s actions have also been criticized because they:

• Violate Universally Accepted Ethical Standards. Randolph College seeks to use the proceeds of the sale for the college’s general fund. The nation’s top professional art organizations strongly oppose this practice. In fact, the Code of Ethics of the Association of American Museums, to which the Maier Museum at Randolph College belongs, states explicitly that “in no event shall they [proceeds of a sale] be used for anything other than acquisition or direct care of collections.”

• Fail to Address the College’s Spending Problems. Randolph College’s claim that it needs to sell part of its art collection to remain financially viable and to comply with requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) is completely off base. In 2006, the college completed a $100-million capital fundraising campaign. The college boasts the fifth largest endowment of any private college in Virginia. Rather than using improper means to increase the size of the college’s $140 million endowment, the college needs to exercise fiscal restraint and control spending. The specific issues that SACS cited the college for – astronomical tuition discounting (in the mid-60 percent range instead of the 30 percent range which is considered normal), excessive deferred maintenance, and operating deficits – are all signs of fiscal mismanagement, not a too-small endowment.

• Harm Efforts to Increase Enrollment. The Maier Museum art collection is one of the finest collections of American art in the country and, with the college’s related programs in studio art, art history, and museum studies, has helped attract many students over the years. Selling some of the most important works from the collection will likely discourage students from choosing the college and have a negative impact on its already declining enrollment, further harming the college’s ability to generate revenue from student tuition and fees, the backbone of a well-run institution.

The college’s enrollment already has declined this year as a result of the college’s questionable decision to go coed. The current enrollment of 665 students is the smallest in more than 40 years.

According to the Memorandum, “this is yet another example of poor decision making and financial mismanagement by the College Trustees.”

“The College went coed allegedly because of financial concerns. So far, alumnae participation in the College’s fundraising programs has dropped by 50 percent; the number of student transfers has surged; and the incoming coed class is smaller than any in recent history,” said Yastremski. “Going coed has been a disaster for the institution. Now the Trustees want to break Miss Smith’s Trust and sell off irreplaceable educational and cultural artworks that have been carefully accumulated through donations and bequests like Miss Smith’s for 100 years.”

“If college officials sell off these important artworks, the college’s decline will continue and even accelerate. Any sale of donated art for operating expenses will damage the College’s reputation with its donors, the art world and the Central Virginia community that has come to treasure the Maier Museum’s world-class collection.”

The Memorandum was filed in the Lynchburg, VA Circuit Court. A hearing date has not been set.

On the subject of contracts

My post on the subject of the unfortunate theft of Afrika Midnight Asha Abney’s work from a restaurant show, and the subsequent issue of who (if anyone) pays for the loss, and my mention of why it is important to have contracts when forming a business association with a gallery or dealer - or any exhibition venue, for that matter – brought an unexpected deluge of emails from artists (and one gallerist) asking why a contract is such a big deal.

Let me give you some examples:

1. Take Afrika’s case: An artist has a show and someone steals a piece of art. What happens next? With a signed contract, the artist would know ahead of time that either (a) the gallery has no insurance, in which case the theft is a full loss, or (b), the gallery has art insurance, in which case (a) the gallery puts a claim in with the insurance company, or (b) the artist deals directly with the insurance company. And, by the way, in the event that there’s insurance, don’t expect to get the full value of the stolen work, but in most cases (and policies) only the 50% commission that you’d have received in the event that the work had sold instead of being stolen.

2. Talking about commissions; how do you know, other than a handshake, what the gallery’s commission is? Let’s say that you are told that the commission is 50% (the general standard for independent commercial fine arts galleries around here). Is that 50% of the price of the piece or 50% of the final sales price? I know of at least one major DC area art gallery that has a record of really screwing artists by giving them 50% of an agreed price for a piece; however, the gallery also often sells the piece for a lot more money to its out of town collectors and keeps the difference. Here’s how it works. The artist agrees to sell the photographs for $500 each and thus expects a commission of $250. The unethical gallerist sells some for $500, and some to its out-of-town clientele for $1000, but gives the artist the same $250 commission on those sales.

3. But let’s say that you have approached a gallery, and show them the works, and discuss representation, and the gallerist agrees to hang some of your work in his next group show. You are not sure if you are “represented” in the sense of the word as you understand it, but shake on it and prepare for your first appearance in a well-known gallery and invite all of your family and friends. At the packed opening, your second cousin-once-removed is admiring one of your huge watercolors, which are tacked onto the wall in a really cool post-post-post-modernist style. He leans forward to admire your brushwork and accidentally spills his white wine onto your watercolor, immediately making your representational work of art into a messy abstraction. What happens next? Does insurance cover damage? Is there insurance? Is that the guy who spilled the wine making a dash for the door?

4. Having learned your lesson, at your next opening you resign yourself to getting your new work framed and spend a ton of money getting them framed at the most affordable (in other words cheapest) possible way, but still spend a considerable amount of shekels -- because as everyone knows, framing is very expensive (unless you attend the Boot camp for Artists Seminar and learn how to cut framing expenses by 80%). When you deliver the works to the gallery, the gallerist goes into fits about your gold leaf rococo frames from Target and silver acidic mats and refuses to hang the work. A good contract would have specified ahead of time all issues dealing with framing and presentation standards.

5. Having calmed down, the gallerist then offers to re-frame all the work for you. You accept with a sigh of relief, and at the opening your 20 newly framed watercolors look great in the 8-ply pH-balanced, acid free mat board, under UV glass and Nielsen mouldings and backed by half-inch, acid free, pH-balanced foam core. You sell four pieces and are happy that things worked out in the end. A few weeks later you get a huge bill in the mail from the gallery; it is what remains of the framing bill after the gallery applied all of your commission to the total framing bill. A good contract should also specify the economic who’s and what’s of any framing done by the gallery.

6. Your relationship with the gallery is now seriously on the rocks, but then you are told that a review in Art News will come out soon. Three months after your show has closed the review finally comes out in Art News and it’s a good one. A young computer geek in Bala Cynwood, Pennsylvania, who is waiting to see his doctor for his annual physical reads that Art News review while waiting in the doc’s office, sees the nice reproduction of your work and after he goes home, looks you up on the Internet and contacts you directly and tells you that he read the review of your gallery show in Art News and wants to buy the painting reproduced in the magazine. You sell him the painting and put all your money in the bank. Sixteen minutes after the painting is delivered to Bala Cynwood, the gallery gets a call from a collector in Spokane, Washington who has also read the Art News review and wants to buy that painting. The gallerist calls you and tells you the good news. You are ecstatic that two people want your painting, but then you tell the gallerist that someone else in Bala Cynwood read the review and that you sold the painting to that person. The gallerist congratulates you on the sale and then asks you to make sure that you send him the gallery’s commission. You are confused because you had no idea that you owed the gallery a commission.

7. Your review in Art News has opened a few doors for your artwork and you are invited by a non-profit art venue to have a solo show at their space in a year. You are pleased and tell everyone, including the gallerist, who informs you that because his gallery represents your work, you are not allowed to exhibit anywhere else in the city, or maybe the area, or maybe the state, or maybe the US, or maybe the world.

8. Then your Alma matter, impressed with your artistic prowess, invites you to a group show of alumni artwork in the school’s gallery. Since you attended art school in another state, you are pretty sure that it will be OK to show there, because after the last confusion, you discovered that the gallery had exclusive representation for your work only in DC, MD and VA, and your art school is in Brownsville, Texas. You tell your gallerist, and because he has never heard of Brownsville, Texas, looks it up on the Internet and then he informs you that if you exhibit your artwork in “certain places” it will bring the reputation of the gallery down and thus the gallerist doesn’t want you to exhibit in Brownsville, Texas – or anywhere in Texas, Arkansas and Nebraska for that matter.

9. You beg and plead because you really want to impress your ex-girlfriend in Texas, and the gallerist allows you to include one piece in that alumni show, but makes it clear that he needs to be consulted on any and all exhibitions of your work. And so you exhibit your best piece in Brownsville and a New York gallerist, who happens to be a Robert Ervin Howard admirer, visits Brownsville and decides to check the local yokels show at the art school. Because your immense watercolors are the largest works in the show, they catch his attention and he jots down your name. Weeks later his intern calls you and tells you that they want to show some of your work in their next group show. This is really hitting the big time, and you announce to your gallerist that a big shot New York gallerist is including you in his next group show. He congratulates you and reminds you that you owe him 10% of any sales made in New York, or in Brownsville, Texas, or anywhere for that matter. You rant and rave and ask why, and he tells you that the reasons for your recent success all lead back to the exposure that he has given you. You demand to know why none of this stuff was made clear from the beginning. The gallerist answers that “everyone knows this,” and that he “likes to operate on a handshake and without a contract.” You then realize that you have him by the balls, since you have no signed contract with him or his gallery, and tell him that you are leaving. He says some threatening stuff about verbal contracts, but you walk away anyway, wondering how you are going to get back the six paintings of yours that the gallerist still has in storage.

10. Nonetheless, New York is New York, and you go visit the big shot New York gallerist and meet with him, and over a handshake he agrees to put you in a group show and tells you that his commission is 60% - You are not sure if you are “represented” in the sense of the word as you understand it, but shake on it and prepare for your first appearance in a New York City gallery and invite all of your family and friends...

$10,000 Art Prize Controversy

When is copying another artist's style and imagery beyond inspiration and "in the style of..."?

Perhaps when art jurors award a $10,000 art prize to the alleged copy cat?

Serendipity


At the Affordable Art Fair last weekend, one of our neighbors was Marcia Weber who was displaying the work of Michael Banks and selling it quite impressively thoughout the weekend (including a piece to Bryant Gumbel).

Since they were next to us at the Fair, we became quite familiar with Banks' work and he even came by and chatted for a while with Catriona Fraser.

And yesterday, an artist who participated in the 51st Annual Boardwalk Art Show in Virginia Beach was talking to Catriona about the work of Doug Odom, the Alabama artist who had been awarded the $10,000 Best of Show prize at that event.

She described the work, and once Catriona saw the artwork via this Virginia Pilot article and studied the imagery of the artwork itself, it immediately dawned on her that the award winner's artwork was essentially very similar to Michael Banks' work.

Imitation?

And thus the question: Should an artist whose work is essentially done is a close copy style of another, better known artist, be awarded a $10,000 prize?

Especially since the jurors apparently praised the originality and naive style of the award-winning work.

The Plot Thickens

And now I am told that Odom used to be Banks' framer, and is thus quite familiar with Banks' work.

And most recently Odom's "art" used to be in making birdhouses, until he started painting the Banks-style paintings.

Opinion

In my opinion, while it may not be illegal to copy another artist's style, in this case it is certainly unethical, especially since the copier has received a major art prize based, in part, on originality and style.

Furthermore, I think that the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia, which is the institution which awards the prize, should recall the award and present it to the second place winner, whoever that artist may be.

Elephant Dung

We've all been bored to death with all the attention that some American museums have been getting online due to a variety of unethical lapses, deaccessioning of artwork, construction or deconstruction, parking lots, etc.

Yawn...

And over in that odd amalgamation of countries and peoples known as Great Britain, they're having their own issues (pronounced the BBC-way or eesssssius), with the Tate spending well over a million dollars (£705,000) in acquiring Christopher Ofili's work The Upper Room, which is partly made by using a few dozen dollops of elephant dung.

It's not the elephant doody that is the issue, but that at

"...the heart of the affair is the fact that, when The Upper Room was purchased from him for £705,000 earlier this year, Ofili was himself a Tate trustee. This, critics say, represents a major conflict of interest. It also seems to contradict official Tate guidelines, which say: "Even the perception of a conflict of interest in relation to a board member can be extremely damaging to the body's reputation."

Read the story in The Independent here.

About ten years ago, something somewhat similar (in my opinion) on a much lesser scale, happened here in DC as a result of a very generous donation left in the will of DC area artist Gene Davis to the then-named National Museum of American Art (now called the Smithsonian American Art Museum).

Read that story, published in 1995 in the WaPo, here.

Jeffry Cudlin Goes Yard

That's new baseball talk (new to me) for hitting a home run. The current issue of the Washington City Paper has Cudlin's review of the area's visual arts year gone by.

And I'll be damned if Cudlin doesn't just hit a very readable homer, but also throws a couple of tight fastballs (awright, awright... enough with the baseball talk).

On Blake Gopnik:

"Ostensibly, Blake Gopnik is the Washington Post’s art critic of note. But his coverage of the art scene this year has seemed less concerned with Washington than with a certain city to the north: He wrote a travelogue on the galleries of Chelsea, and he recently began conducting studio visits with artists living and working in Brooklyn. Still, certain D.C. events were on Gopnik’s mind, if not on his itinerary. We could count on him to draw attention to anything confirming his worst suspicions about his occasional hometown — say, those PandaMania bears, or, yes, the redundant controversy of Artomatic (in which I participated)."

That was very good, and it takes cojones to say it; and there's more. Cudlin praises Dixon, references a well-known BLOG and slams Jessica:

"Meanwhile, thoughtful freelance critic Glenn Dixon — the only area reviewer to write on a 19.3 grade level, according to one local art blog — bailed on the Washington City Paper and made an auspicious debut in the Post’s Galleries column. Then he promptly thought better of it and bailed once more —which leaves column readers again with Jessica Dawson and only the blandest publicizing imaginable. But now only twice a month."

Ouch! I do disagree with Cudlin's broad characterization of cooperative galleries when he writes that "Numark [Gallery] stands out in a ’hood that’s home to craftsy emporiums such as Zenith Gallery and — even more dubious — pay-to-show member galleries such as Touchstone."

I disagree 1000% with his characterization of artist-run cooperative galleries.

Cooperative galleries such as Touchstone are not "dubious" and in fact cooperative galleries in this town are some of the oldest galleries in our area, surviving the demise of many private galleris, and have been a breeding ground for many, many artists, who now show in other galleries - including now showing in most of the independent, private commercial fine art galleries mentioned in Cudlin's article.

In fact, I am told that at least one of those "other" galleries mentioned elsewhere in Cudlin's article is one that unfortunately has charged artists to exhibit. This is called a "vanity gallery" and it is much different than a cooperative of artists all sharing the costs of running a gallery space. Being a true "vanity gallery" is unethical especially when the gallery pretends to be a "regular" gallery and in private charges artists a fee to exhibit in their spaces. Very unethical.

Otherwise a superb round-up! Read Cudlin's entire article here.

Bravo Cudlin!

One of my pet peeves about people who say that they write about the Washington visual art scene is the fact that some of them rarely immerse themselves in it. I believe that in order to really be qualified to write about Washington art galleries and Washington artists, then you need to spend a lot of time going to Washington art galleries and talking and meeting and kibitzing with people involved in the arts and artists.

This doesn’t mean just hanging around the three or four fave galleries, where you know the owner, and he/she knows you and greets you when you come in. This doesn’t mean focusing on just the museums and writing about the big names.

And above all, this doesn’t mean dismissing all the galleries that you never visit or perhaps then unfairly perceive as not relevant or interesting. The gall to dismiss art that you never see, or to evaluate a place that you’ve never set foot on, is not only short-sighted but downright unethical.

But it happens.

To write about Washington galleries one needs to spend a lot of time visiting galleries. Not just a handful here and there because you day job is so demanding on you, but 2-3 a week and all over the area – Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Alexandria, Bethesda, 7th Street area, Arlington, the universities, the various ethnic/embassy cultural centers and galleries, the non-profits in Rockville, Reston, etc. A lot of driving; a lot of time; a lot of viewing and digesting.

Being on the "inside" affords me some interesting views of the world of art. One of these views are of and about art critics and writers, most of whom are smart, eloquent, fair and intelligent symbiotic members of our art scene, and some of who operate under the mantle of being objective and fair and open minded, and yet carry hidden agendas, lazy gallery routes and unethical practices.

Let's discuss the latter.

They just don’t have the time, or desire, to see a lot of galleries. I don’t blame them – it’s not easy... but then don’t pretend that you then "cover the DC area."

Sigh... here it comes.

We are without a doubt one of the most reviewed galleries in the Greater Washington area – that is one thing for which we cannot complain (in fact, we have a small mention in today's Arts Beat column in the Post). All three major DC area newspapers (Post, Times and WCP) have been more than generous in reviewing our galleries over the years. Especially when one realizes how meager is the Post and Times’ printspace dedicated to the art galleries.

The one notable exception as far as printspace being the WCP, which under the guidance of its Arts Editor, Leonard Roberge, has taken the lead in reviewing and discussing the area’s visual art scene and delivers more reviews in a weekly format than the two dailies combined.

However, after dozens and dozens of reviews by the papers, national and international magazines, and even television. And after being around for over eight years, and having offered well over 100 art exhibitions… I still know of at least two widely published area art scribes who have never set foot in either of our galleries (at least as far as I know)… or in most other galleries in our area (I know because before I wrote this I talked to four gallery owners at random and asked them: "As far as you know, has fill-in-the-blank ever set foot in your gallery?"

The answer was no.

Interesting uh?

Bad things galleries do to art collectors...

Our area, like most major metropolitan areas, is peppered with stores that have the word "gallery" in their business name, but are very much far removed from what one would consider a true art gallery.

You will always find them in high traffic areas; main thoroughfare streets where "real" galleries could never afford the rent. You also often find them in malls.

I am speaking of the places that sell mass produced decorative works, either by Kinkade wannabes, Spanish-surnamed painters and worse still, the following scam:

Some of Picasso's children inherited many of the plates used by Picasso to create his etchings. Since them, some of those plates have been printed ad nauseum by the current owners and are sold around the world as Picasso prints.

And then, to make matters worse, some of the plates are signed "Picasso" by his offspring owner, who is (of course) technically also surnamed Picasso.

The sales pitch, which is not technically illegal, but certainly unethical, goes something like this:

"This is a real Picasso etching, printed from the original plate and it is signed."

Note that they never state who signed the print.

Hapless buyer purchases the print for a pretty good chunk of change, takes it home and brags to his friends about his signed Picasso.

This will be a hell of a mess for the Antiques Road Show experts to detangle in a couple of hundred years.

And don't even get me started on the great Dali art fraud.

Bad things artists do to galleries...

This just happened to a Washington, DC gallery:

A person who has a very good professional career is also an artist and approached a local gallery asking to be considered for a show. The gallery owner liked the work and offered the artist a show.

That gallery then sent the artist a contract.

Nearly a year later, a few days before the opening - once all the invitations and publicity have been done - the artist sends the gallery an email stating that the artist thinks that the gallery's 50% commission is outrageous and unethical (the standard commission by DC area commercial fine arts venues is 50% by the way - a few non profits are 40% and by the way, some NYC galleries are as high as 70%).

The gallery is also somewhat at fault here, as they should been in better commmunication with the artist and ensured that the contract was well understood and signed and agreed upon before the last minute.

The day of the opening night, the artist shows up with the work, including several pieces that are not for sale. The gallery informs the artist that in order to pay the rent, the gallery must sell work. A verbal fight follows, and finally an agreement of sorts is agreed upon - but never actually written down. On opening night, some work is sold.

The next day the artist shows up complaining that her work has been sold.

The exasperated gallery owner cuts the artist a check for the 50% commission and asks that the artist remove all their work from the gallery and never approach them again.

The artist takes the check and leaves - probably thinking evil thoughts about the gallery. The gallery is now faced with an empty gallery.

A true story...

Sigh...

Pilfered from ArtsJournal: A Chicago art dealer has been charged with attempting to sell fake Picassos in Milwaukee.

I don't know of any DC area art dealer selling fake Picassos, but there are many, many "galleries" that do have a Picasso scam going on - not just in our area, but since many of these "galleries" are actually chain or franchise stores passing as art galleries, the scam goes on all over the country.

You know the type of "gallery" that I am talking about: They sell a lot of "pretty" decorative art, loads of gyclees on canvas by mass production, decorative artists with European-sounding names and "art" by famous people who are not artists or art by Hollywood actors. You can find these "galleries" in expensive rent areas (where a reputable gallery couldn't afford a space) such as M Street in Georgetown, most of La Jolla in California, in malls, and around Bethesda.

The scam is probably not illegal, but it is certainly unethical.

Here's how it works:

Many of Picasso's etching plates are apparently owned by some of his children, and they continue to use the plates to print their father's work ad nauseum. Then, the Picasso offspring sign the work with their last name, which conveniently is also "Picasso."

The sales pitch for the print then describes it as "this is a Picasso etching made from the original plate and it is signed."

They never (unless one asks) tell you that the Picasso signature that you see on the piece is NOT Pablo Picasso's signature but a Picasso son or daughter's signature (which of course now looks a lot like their father's)

So hapless buyers think that they are buying a print signed by the world's greatest artist, when in fact they are acquiring a print from his plate, but signed by one of his children.

Not illegal perhaps - but unethical.

Bad things galleries do to artists: Unethical galleries will take in a piece of artwork by an artist, and when the price is discussed, the gallery says: "What's the price?" and the artist says: "$1000" The gallery nods OK and the artist leaves, knowing that if sold, he'll get $500 (most galleries in the DC area charge 50% commission (in NYC some are as high as 70%). The gallery then sells the piece, but for $2,000, sends the artist a check for $500 and pockets the extra $1,000. That is why artists should insist on having a contract with a gallery, and the contract must specifically address that the artist will get 50% of the actual sale price.

Bad things artists to do galleries: A reputable gallery gives an artist a show, and goes through all the various expenses associated with doing so (rent, electricity, staff salaries, publicity, ads, post cards, opening reception catering, etc.) So far the gallery has put forth a considerable investment in presenting the artist's works. An interested novice collector meets the artist at the opening and expresses interest (to the artist) in buying some of his artwork. The artist, wishing to stiff the gallery for their commission says: "See me after the show and I'll sell it to you directly and save myself the gallery commission." This is not only unethical, but it's also guaranteed to ruin the artist's reputation in the city, as these things always come out in the wash, and soon no gallery will exhibit any work by this artist.

Is there a personal "feud" between the Washington Post's chief art critic Blake Gopnik and the Corcoran?

Washingtonian magazine usually has very limited visual arts coverage, and it has always been a mystery to me why they do such a good job of reviewing books, music, restaurants and theatre and yet (with some rare exceptions) ignore our museums and galleries and artists.

However, the current November issue has a very interesting article by Henry Jaffe, who writes a column titled Post Watch.

This month's column is titled Too Much Poison in Art Critic’s Pen? and it's all about the "feud" between the Washington Post's chief art critic Blake Gopnik and the Corcoran.

Washingtonian doesn't archive their articles, so go buy the magazine or read it online, as it will be gone next month.

Jaffe writes that “A lot of people are concerned about the state of art criticism at the Post,” says one museum official, echoing the view of others. None would speak on the record. “He [Gopnik] seems to be very personal. It’s always about his perspective rather than a broader, critical look at the subject.”

And Corcoran director Davy Levy is quoted as calling "Gopnik’s review “unethical” and says the critic often displays “immodest immaturity” in his reviews."

Jaffee also writes that "Levy and the Corcoran were especially steamed that Gopnik ended his review with a dig at the museum, whose “reputation has slipped badly over the last few years.”

Says Levy: “A couple of people Blake talks to don’t appreciate what we do.”

Says Gopnik: “I could get 20 quotes off the record and five on from people who agree with me.” The Corcoran has exhibited “a pattern of terrible shows.”

I am curious as to what people think about this issue. Please email me with your thoughts on this subject.

---