Comments on: Why art isn’t a commodity, Cady Noland edition

By: rb6

rb6 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:30:39 +0000

Hugh, you can contact the artist and either become partners/joint venturers, or negotiate the purchase of the copyright from the artist and take the risk of loss from manufacturing and marketing the cards yourself. A copyright can be bought and sold, but as you say, it does not transfer automatically with the purchase of an original work of art. Even a commissioned work might not transfer the copyright. It’s all negotiable.

By: Quasimodo3000

Quasimodo3000 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:24:09 +0000

Ps. Its not at all unusual for auction houses to waive all fees and commissions to get property from consignors; the two major firms are very competitive (remember the price fixing scandal of only a decade ago?). In fact, art journalists complain that the auction houses go too far in their inducements to sellers with (confusing) guarantee arrangements.

By the way, its hard to imagine that Jancou has any kind of case – the auction firms have iron-clad “pre-nups”

By: Quasimodo3000

Quasimodo3000 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:15:25 +0000

Nb: Cady Noland, who is the daughter of the late Color Field painter Kenneth Noland, has withdrawn from the art world and apparently hates the art market. She hasnt made any of this art for years and does not participate in the run-up in value for her works. Strange, but you know those nutty artists.

As for Marc Jancou, well, he’s what you might call a shark. That’s not libellous, is it?

By: MaxUtil

MaxUtil — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:38:50 +0000

@HughLoebner – Or you just contact the artist and negotiate a deal to split proceeds. The attempt to make it sound like no further use can occur because an artist retains copyright is disingenuous. If there’s enough information for the artist to benefit by reputation, there’s enough for you to find them.

Alternately, you could buy a work from someone with a moderate reputation, rework the image to be something offensive, yet commercially viable, and completely destroy their reputation. So it kind of works both ways.

“Don’t those silly artists realize they’re just hurting themselves with their copyright!”

By: HughLoebner

HughLoebner — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:10:02 +0000

“They might have sold the work, but it’s still theirs, on some level, and that does give them certain rights of authorship. The artist nearly always retains copyright in the work….”
This is is contra the artist’s best interest. For example: Some years ago, in a bar in Baltmore, I bought 4 very witty small paintings of doggie images (NOT playing pool or cards) for $50 each. One of the images would make a wonderful Valentine day’s card.

Suppose I had the right to use the image to sell the cards, did so, and made, say, a million dollars with the artist getting nothing but credit for the image.

At least the artist would be known as the creator of a million dollar image, and the very reasonable expectation of MUCH higher prices for subsequent paintings.

But this is not the way of the world. So the artist got his $50 but nothing else, and I get to enjoy the painting, but nothing else.

By: Moopheus

Moopheus — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:51:25 +0000

“The artist nearly always retains copyright in the work, for instance (which is why you’ll never see images of Richard Prince works from the mid-70s)”

Because Prince was ripping off other people’s copyrights?

“All of which is yet another reason why art isn’t a commodity which can simply be bought and sold at a market price.”

Then how could it be that there is a market for art in which art is bought and sold at prices largely determined by what buyers are willing to pay?

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:30:36 +0000

This is most definitely not a world I live in.