Morton Fine Art to present its second *a pop-up project

The exhibition, titled Ritual: Form, Script, Gesture, is a selection of artworks by national and international artists Sally Curcio, Ethan Diehl, Sungmi Lee, Choichun Leung, Julia Fernandez-Pol and Hadieh Shafie.

*a pop-up project will be on display from October 23 through December 18, 2010 at:

Wash Art (formerly Osuna Gallery)
The Artery Building
7200 Wisconsin Ave
Bethesda, MD

The opening reception will be held on Saturday, October 23 from 5 – 8 pm.

Images can be previewed online at www.apopupproject.com

Opportunity for DMV Artists

Deadline: October 30, 2010

The BlackRock Center for the Arts has a huge gorgeous gallery space and their call for artists for the 2011 art season is now up.

The 2011 Call to Artists is open to all artists residing in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC over the age of 18 for original artwork only. This call will cover exhibits in the gallery from October 2011 through August 2012. An exhibit may include on applicant or a combination of applicants, based on the judgement of jurors. The jury panel is comprised of Kathleen Moran, Jack Rasmussen and yours truly.

Details here.

Howard County Cultural Arts Showcase 2011

Deadline: November 5, 2010.

The Howard County Arts Council is now accepting artist applications for its annual Cultural Arts Showcase presented in partnership with the Recreation & Leisure Service Branch (RALS) of the Maryland Recreation & Parks Association (MRPA).

The event will be held at Howard County Center for the Arts at 8510 High Ridge Road in Ellicott City on March 3 & 4, 2011. Showcase is a program designed to assist school and civic organizations in identifying performing, visual and literary artists for workshops, performances, demonstrations, and in-school residencies. Attendees of Showcase include cultural arts representatives, PTA Representatives, festival and special event coordinators from Recreation and Parks and other members of the community.

For artist application information, please contact the Howard County Arts Council at 410.313.2787 / MD RELAY 711 or visit them on the web at www.hocoarts.org.

Enrique Chagoya Opens in DC today

The Bing Stanford in Washington Art Gallery will host Collisions Between Historical Visions: The Art of Enrique Chagoya. This exhibition of paintings, drawings, sculpture, and prints "highlights cultural clashes of religious iconography, ethnic stereotypes, ideological propaganda, and pop culture" by the Stanford University professor whose work recently caused the nationwide furor for his depiction of Christ in a show at Colorado's Loveland Museum.

Enrique Chagoya was born in Mexico and attended the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México where he contributed political cartoons to student and union newsletters. In 1977 he immigrated to the United States and received a BFA in printmaking from the San Francisco Art Institute and a MA / MFA at the University of California, Berkeley. He was awarded a fellowship at Monet’s Giverny Gardens and was in residence at the Cité international des Arts in Paris. Chagoya’s art commonly addresses cultural clashes over both space and time. He currently serves as a Professor of Art and Art History at Stanford University and has been chosen as the 2010 Navigation Press distinguished visiting artist at George Mason University. From October 11 to the 15th Mr. Chagoya will work with School of Art students to produce a new etching. He will present a lecture in the Harris Theater on Thursday October 14th as part of the Visual Voices lecture series

.The Bing Stanford in Washington Art Gallery is located at 2655 Connecticut Avenue, NW; Washington, DC 20008. Red Line to Woodley Park-Zoo / Adams Morgan. Hours are 9:00-7:00 M-F, 12:00-6:00 Sat & Sun.

The exhibit runs from October 12, 2010 until January 2011. The opening reception is today from 5:30 - 8PM. RSVP required to Meghvi at 202/332-3247.

For more information please call 202-332-6235 or visit this website. Admission is free.

Poconoing

Spending the long weekend in the Poconos. Heading home tomorrow.

Farm near Sugarloaf, Pennsylvania, October 10, 2010


Little Junes at Maylath Farms, Sugarloaf, Pennsylvania, October 10, 2010.

EJ Montgomery

Coming out of the woodworks

I've got yet another former Klaudia Marr Gallery artist writing to me with a horror story about his relationship with the former Santa Fe gallerist. More on that as I dig around.

Since I first started digging around this storyline, I've called Ms. Marr and left a voice mail, and also sent her emails to get her side of the story on all of this, any corrections, clarifications, explanations, etc. but so far she has ignored me.

This makes me wonder; are there any artists in the DMV who have been ripped off by any of the DMV's art dealers? Or gallerists ripped off by artists? (it happens both ways). If so, drop me an email.

Update: Here's the Better Business Bureau current rating for the Klaudia Marr Gallery: F.

Folded Mohammed? Nope: Another Folded Christ

Steve Miller claims to have found a whole new angle to the story about the piece in an art exhibit at the Loveland Museum/Gallery which apparently depicts Jesus Christ involved in what some say is an act of oral sex.

The piece is a folded-paper lithograph and woodcut panel depicting cultural icons. Titled "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals," it was created by California-based artist Enrique Chagoya, a professor at Stanford University.

The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals by Enrique Chagoya. Color lithograph/woodcut. 7½" x 90". Ed. 30. $3400
You can buy it online used to be able to buy it online here, but now it's gone, so maybe it is sold out!

I blasted the professor for taking easy short cuts to Serranoesque/Offiliesque shock art and challenged him that "For his next panel, if he wants to get international attention of a diverse nature to say the least, I dare him to do a similar Muhammad panel."

But apparently, the professor had done this already! And no one has mentioned it, as far as I can tell. According to Steve Miller in a comment in my original post: "None of the talking heads seem to have noticed that Mohammed IS portrayed on one of the panels. He seems to be kneeling before a pair of pigs dressed up like hookers in one of the panels."

See it in the bottom panel? It's the second scene.

Can someone verify this? I will try to email the professor and also the print shop where the piece was made and also the museum.

If this is correct, then my kudos to the professor; he's got some big cojones and I stand corrected.

Update: Prof. Chagoya responded to my request for verification and passes that it is not Mohammed in that panel but another representation of Christ; he says:

First of all there are no representations of the prophet Mohamed. In my book my original source is actually coming from a representation of Jesus in a Persian Manuscript from the 17th Century reproduced in an [Newsweek, March 27, 2000] article by Kenneth L. Woodward in March 27 2000. In my book it represents the spiritual (represented by the Persian illustration of Jesus) protecting himself from temptation with flames around him (the pig ladies are the symbol of temptation in my book). In the online version there are no illustrations but the article matches the hard copy.

So there are no representations of Mohammed in the piece by Prof. Chagoya.

By the way, some idiot destroyed the work that had been on exhibit in the museum:

A woman armed with a crowbar entered the Loveland Museum/Gallery on Wednesday afternoon and destroyed a controversial exhibit that some said shows Jesus Christ engaged in a sex act.

"The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals," by Stanford University's Enrique Chagoya, has been the subject of a week's worth of protests by those who claim it is blasphemy.

"It's sad and upsetting," Chagoya said Wednesday night by phone from California. "I've never had this kind of violent reaction to my art. Violence doesn't resolve anything."

The suspect was identified by police as 56-year-old Kathleen Folden of Kalispell, Mont. She is in custody on a charge of criminal mischief, a Class 4 felony with a fine of up to $2,000.

Police said the woman entered the museum about 4 p.m. and stood in front of the exhibit. Using a crowbar or similar tool, she broke the plexiglass protecting the image and tore up the artwork. She also cut herself in the process.

Read the story online here.

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.

Kristina Bilonick

Jessica Dawson of the WaPo goes yard with her 10th and final selection for Real Art D.C.

Read Jessica's piece, which will be in tomorrow's Post, here.

Opportunity for Artists

Deadline: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 5 PM

The Office of the Arts and Alexandria Commission for the Arts invite proposals from artists for exhibitions in the following gallery locations: Durant Arts Center, Lee Center, Charles E. Beatley Jr. Central Library, Planning and Zoning Office, City Council Board Room, City Manager’s Office, Mayor’s Office, City Hall Employee Lounge, and Transportation and Environmental Services. Proposals will be considered for exhibition in all galleries. All entries must be two-dimensional.

A. Gallery Descriptions:
Durant Arts Center, 1605 Cameron Street. Conveniently located in the Upper King Street neighborhood of Old Town, the Durant Arts Center is Alexandria’s premier multi-cultural center for the performing and visual arts. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 30 - 40 works.

Lee Center, 1108 Jefferson Street. The Lee Center houses the main offices of the Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities and provides space for classes, activities, and performances. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 6 - 25 works.

Charles E. Beatley Jr. Library, 5005 Duke Street. Beatley is one of the largest libraries in Alexandria. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 10 - 20 works. City Council Board Room Gallery, City Hall (second floor), 301 King Street. City Hall is an architectural and community cornerstone of Old Town Alexandria. The City Council Board Room is used for legislative meetings of City Council and occasionally for other meetings. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 6 -10 works.

Mayor’s Office, Conference Room, City Hall (second floor), 301 King Street. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 6-10 works.
City Manager’s Office, Conference Room, City Hall (third floor), 301 King Street. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 6 -10 works.

Planning & Zoning Office, City Hall (second floor), 301 King Street. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 10 - 15 works.

Transportation and Environmental Services, City Hall (fourth floor), 301 King Street. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 8-10 works.

City Hall Employee Lounge, City Hall (fifth floor), 301 King Street. Proposals sought for exhibitions of 8 -10 works.

B. Exhibition Details: Exhibitions will run six months. There is no exhibition theme and all two-dimensional media will be accepted. All work must be original; no giclee’ reproductions will be accepted. Exhibit locations will depend on space and availability. All original works should be appropriately finished for display and/or hanging (i.e. matted, framed, and equipped with appropriate hanging hardware).

C. Eligibility: Individual artists, consortia of artists, and organizations who work and/or live in the City of Alexandria are eligible to apply.

D. Entry Fee: There is NO entry fee.

E. Proposal Deadline: All proposals (solo exhibition, consortium, or organization) must be received by Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 5 PM.

F. Entry procedures: Send entries to:
Durant Arts Center
ATTN: Call for Entries 2010-2012
1605 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.

Submitted proposals will be considered for exhibition in all galleries. Do not send separate proposals for each of the galleries. The Office of the Arts and the Alexandria Commission for the Arts reserve the right to combine submitted proposals as appropriate if a proposal does not include sufficient work for exhibition in a given gallery.

Please submit the following:

- A completed application form.

- A resume.

- A CD or a DVD with a maximum of 12 images representing your work. CD or DVD must be PC-compatible. Images should be numbered, and each should include the artist’s name and the title of the work.

- No more than one page, attached to the application form, giving a brief description of the work to be considered for exhibition, an artist’s statement, and a description of the artist(s), consortium, or organizations involved in the exhibition.

G. Notification: Initial selection will be based on proposals submitted. Final selection may require studio visits. Finalists will be notified by e-mail by Monday, November 22, 2010.

All artists selected will be required to sign a Loan Agreement with the Office of the Arts and the Alexandria Commission for the Arts.

H. Terms: All artists/organizations are responsible for shipping/delivery, pick-up, preparation, and installation of works to be exhibited.

I. Sale: Work may be for sale or marked NFS (Not for Sale). If NFS, a value must be stated in the Loan Agreement form for insurance purposes. A 10 percent commission applies to all artwork sold. Artwork accepted for exhibit (not including duplicate works) may NOT be sold directly by artists or their representatives (including through their websites) for the duration of the exhibition.

J. Information: Information is available at this website or alexandriacommissionforthearts.org. Contact the Office of the Arts at (703) 746-5588 or by e-mail at aca@alexandriava.gov. In the subject line, please mention “Call for Entries 2010-2012.”

On video

Head for Art's Aleid Ford interviews me about the 100 Washington Artists book.

See it online here or below.

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

Seen on Univision

Left wing nut Bolivian President Evo Morales was part of a "friendly" soccer match recently. At one point, a player from the opposing team accidentally stepped on El Presidente's foot. Minutes later Morales corners the other player and knees him in the nuts.



El Presidente avoided receiving a red card, but the other guy was ejected after being kneed in the nuts and after the game was almost arrested by Morales' security detail.

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.

Artists' Websites: Heidi Fowler


Heidi Fowler has twice been a finalist in the Bethesda Painting Awards (and a second prize winner) as well as a semifinalist for the Trawick and has exhibited widely around the region, most recently at the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia, in Virginia Beach. Check out her extensive and diverse portfolio here.

MPAartfest yesterday

As you know, yesterday I participated at the MPAartfest, juried by Trudi Van Dyke, who selected forty-four artists to participate in the fourth iteration of this show.

The show was terrific for me. I sold seven drawings, including my three largest (and most expensive) ones. One of the pieces is going to the permanent collection of the American Federation of Government Employees, while another piece went to the permanent collection of one of the DMV's top art collectors.

Because of its size, I had to deliver this second piece to the owner's gorgeous McLean address. When I dropped it off at her house, she said that she was going to call a hanging crew to hang it right away later this week.

I told her that she didn't need to do that. I added that I had hanging gear in my toolbox in the van and that it would take me five minutes to hang it; if she had the space already in mind.

She was delighted and let me into her house.

The substantial walkway to the main home was full of Washington Color School paintings and I began to wonder how my figurative drawing, large and monochromatic as it was, would fit in such an abstract and colorful collection.

The living room (I think) was sort of a transition point. There was not one, but several Gerhard Richters in the room - both his abstract stuff and his representational monochromatic work. Also paintings by Hirst, Bedia, Kuitca (I think) and what appeared to be a sculpture by Ana Mendieta; but we just passed through and I was somewhat dazzled and very tired.

The second large room past that room had a large David Hockney painting from the swimming pool series, and several gorgeous Hockney figurative drawings all around it and other artists as well. There was a large open spot on the wall, where something had been removed, and she pointed me to it.

To the right was a Hockney drawing and to the left was one of those silly Marcel Dzama root beer bear drawings. I was a little stunned and tried a joke.

"Do I really have to hang my piece next to this silly Dzama?" I asked. She took it seriously (maybe I meant it).

"No, no!," she replied. "We can take it down..."

Now it was me who was saying "no, no! - I was only joking!"

She didn't seem too convinced. "I am honored to be in this room with all these Hockney drawings," I added. "He was one of my inspirations in Art School."

"I knew it!" she said triumphantly. "This is the perfect spot."

It took me less than five minutes to measure, re-use their hanging devices and put up my drawing between Dzama and Hockney.

She loved it, although as we walked back out, she glanced back, and I had this feeling that Marcel was going down soon afterwards.

Congrats!

To the superbly talented and innovative Alexa Meade, whose work is part of the next show opening at the Saatchi Gallery in London this coming Thursday!

I am told that supposedly Kate Moss and Mick Jagger are confirmed to be on the guest list for the private viewing.

Meade will have five prints exhibited in the show as well an installation with a live model on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

WPA 2011 Artist Directory

Deadline: February 1, 2011

The Washington Project for the Arts has announced a call for submissions for its 2011 Artist Directory.

Published bi-annually, this four-color, 8.5 x 5.5 inch directory is the definitive listing of established and emerging contemporary artists throughout the Washington region. It is seen by more than 2,000 galleries, curators, art consultants, and interested art patrons. Copies are distributed to selected art critics and other members of the press, and to museums both in the region and outside the area. The 2011 Artist Directory will also be available for sale on the WPA website and at select area retail locations at the price of $9.95.

Each participating artist will be featured on a full page (8.5 x 5.5 inches). The page will include the artist's name, a color digital image of their work, their studio address and phone number, email address, web address, and their gallery affiliation.

All current WPA members are eligible for publication in the Artist Directory. There is an additional registration fee that includes a copy of the Artist Directory. Participants who submit before December 1, 2010 can pay a discounted early registration fee of $65. After December 1, the registration fee increases to $75. The final registration deadline is February 1, 2011. No submissions will be accepted after this date.

All submissions will be handled through an online registration form on the WPA's website.

Each participating artist can upload one image to be featured on their page. Images must be submitted as .eps or .tif files in CMYK format. They must be 300dpi and as close as possible to, but no smaller than 6 inches on the longest side.

If you have any questions regarding the 2011 Artist Directory, please contact Blair Murphy, Membership Directory at bmurphy@wpadc.org or 202-234-7103 x 1.