Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Community Announcements > Sculpture News and Events
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2007, 05:58 PM
Andrew Werby Andrew Werby is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 647
Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

My name is Andrew Werby, I've been active here before on occasion, trying to help people with their technical issues; now I need some help myself from the sculpture community.

In 1982, I installed a large (3 meters, plus the base) commissioned bronze sculpture called "Spiropod" in front of an apartment building in San Mateo, California. This was a piece I cast myself (with a little help from my friends), and worked on for 6 months, what with making wax parts, assembling, casting, welding, chasing, and patination. I considered it a masterpiece of my "Juxtamorphic" style, and it was one of the few pieces I've made which had a permanent public site.

On visiting the site in 2006, I was astonished to find the piece missing from its base, and a flagpole planted in its place, although I had received no notice whatever from the new owners of the building expressing any dissatisfaction with it. On investigation, I found that they had simply trashed it. Since my name was etched prominently on the granite base, and I'm not difficult to find, this seemed like an unwarranted and malicious thing to have done.

In California (and to a lesser extent in the US as a whole), there is a state law which prohibits the destruction or defacement of "recognized" works of art. I am alleging that the owners violated that statute, and am seeking damages. In their defense, their lawyers are denying that my work came up to the level of art that the statute was intended to protect. That's why I need your help, and very soon (I'm supposed to come up with a list of supporters by Monday the 27th of August, although I may be able to add some later).

If you can look at a photo of this piece (there's one on my website: http://users.lmi.net/drewid/Spiropod.html and I'll try to post one here as well) and agree that art of this caliber should be protected from wanton destruction, I need your statement for my lawyer to introduce as evidence.

We need your real name and contact info; especially helpful would be any artworld credentials you might have, whether it's a college degree or teaching position, curatorship, membership on a non-profit's board, or anything like that. You can address my lawyer, Caroline Valentino, directly by sending a message to cvalentino@hjmmlaw.com or you can send me a message and I'll forward it to her. Please note that this is not a survey - if you don't like the piece, you don't need to let us know about it, it's already gone...

Andrew Werby
awerby@computersculpture.com
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	spiropsm.jpg
Views:	329
Size:	66.6 KB
ID:	6888  
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-23-2007, 07:43 PM
fritchie's Avatar
fritchie fritchie is offline
Sculptor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 3,456
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Andrew - This looks like an excellent work of art to me, and I'm very sorry to hear its fate. I'm not the person to join a lawsuit of the sort you describe, so I can't help you there, but I do hope you get some recompense out of this event.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-23-2007, 08:53 PM
evaldart's Avatar
evaldart evaldart is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: easthampton, massachusetts
Posts: 5,637
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Andrew, I think that was a fine piece and I'm sorry to hear of its demise. If Evaldart can do anything in lieu of written support, I will. I have a couple of of credentals...check evaldart.com and get back to me. Later.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-13-2008, 11:11 AM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

We have just got this happy news.

Artist nets big bucks for sculpture removal

Feb 13, 2008. SAN MATEO A homeowners association's decision to say "sayonara" to Andrew Werby's "Spiropod" sculpture without his consent has resulted in a six-figure settlement for the artist.

Werby noticed that the 11-foot-high bronze work he created in 1982 for the Gramercy on the Park condominium complex at 555 Laurel Ave. was gone when he drove by the complex during Easter weekend in 2006. ...

A flagpole, attached to the base that Werby created, had replaced the towering work.

Werby said something similar had happened to an artist friend of his, so he knew his rights and decided to take legal action. That move resulted in a recent $150,000 mediated settlement with the Gramercy on the Park Homeowners Association. Roughly half of that amount will go to Werby's attorney.

Werby filed suit against the association under the state's California Art Preservation Act, which protects artists' rights when it comes to destroying or altering works.

"It was his masterpiece, and it is gone forever," said Werby's attorney, Caroline Valentino of Oakland-based Haims, Valentino & Latchaw. "They had it destroyed." ...

Werby called the settlement, reached in November, a small price for the association to pay for the amount of work he put into the sculpture.

"I would rather have the sculpture there," Werby said. "It took me six months to make the thing. It was pretty important to me because I never made a bronze that big."

He said he never received any explanation as to why the sculpture was taken down and nobody is saying where it ended up. Werby speculated that "Spiropod" was scrapped. He plans to retrieve the base later this week. ...
__________________
Merlion
www.onesunartist.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-13-2008, 04:11 PM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Well, there's good and bad here. Congrats Andrew on winning your case, but what kind of message does it send in the end? In my mind, once an artist sells a piece it's no longer his/hers and if the owner wants to drop it off the Golden Gate bridge that's their business.. I would have tried to track down the artist myself and asked if they wanted to come pick it up, but not everyone is going to do that (nor is there anything in writing that says they should I presume). The negative ramifications of this are pretty clear to me. People who wish to buy sculpture may be hesitant in an already litigation kooky victim based society.. I might ask myself next time before I buy a sculpture; Gee, am I going to get sued if I decide later I don't want this around? What's next, a law prohibiting destruction of wall tile in my bathroom? Will some painter come along and sue me if I decide to chuck his painting that I bought in the trash?

Maybe these aren't quite the same, but maybe they are.. Might be worth writing a contract that specifies that the owner must contact the artist before removing said piece before selling it next time..

I would have ruled against you, not becuase the art suffers, it doesn't and it's quite nice in fact, but I think the law is more geared around deterring vandals and I don't think the intent was to vandalize, but rather redecorate and it becomes a very sticky wicket suing someone for what essentially boils down to intentional bad taste in replacing a fine sculpture with a flag pole..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-13-2008, 05:50 PM
Ries's Avatar
Ries Ries is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Edison Washington
Posts: 1,154
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Whether or not its right in Steven's mind, it appears to be the law of the land.
In my mind, pot ought to be legal- but that doesnt seem to have any affect on our criminal justice system.


The law is the law.
An artist would be foolish not to take advantage of a law that is clearly in his favor.

I feel bad for Andrew, money or no money, as the piece is gone, forever, when if they had only asked him, he probably would have been happy to get it back, and find a new spot for it.
__________________
Been There.
Got in Trouble for that.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-15-2008, 09:25 AM
suburbanartists's Avatar
suburbanartists suburbanartists is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rumson,NJ / Block Island,RI / Eden, Ut
Posts: 1,014
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

A case where one phone call would have saved everyone but the lawyer a lot of money and grief.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-16-2008, 05:54 PM
Andrew Werby Andrew Werby is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 647
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

[I was going to post something here about the resolution of this case, but I see Merlion beat me to it. (Thanks, M!) Steve brings up some good points; I've obviously given the issue considerable thought, so I'll respond to them in context below.]

[quote=StevenW;52961]Well, there's good and bad here. Congrats Andrew on winning your case, but what kind of message does it send in the end? In my mind, once an artist sells a piece it's no longer his/hers and if the owner wants to drop it off the Golden Gate bridge that's their business..

[There are various problems with that approach (including the contrary view that people sailing under the bridge might take). I suppose you also disagree with copyright law? After all, if one has the absolute right to do whatever one wants with a piece, what about making copies and selling them? But that's illegal in most places, fortunately for artists. So is mutilating it, or pretending that you made it yourself. Ownership rights are not absolute in many other cases. If you buy a piece of forest land, you don't automatically have the right to cut down all the trees or kill all the animals that live there. If you want to tear down your house, you will need a demolition permit, even if you bought it outright.]


I would have tried to track down the artist myself and asked if they wanted to come pick it up, but not everyone is going to do that (nor is there anything in writing that says they should I presume).

[It's in California law (CAPA) as well as Federal law (VARA).]

The negative ramifications of this are pretty clear to me. People who wish to buy sculpture may be hesitant in an already litigation kooky victim based society.. I might ask myself next time before I buy a sculpture; Gee, am I going to get sued if I decide later I don't want this around? What's next, a law prohibiting destruction of wall tile in my bathroom? Will some painter come along and sue me if I decide to chuck his painting that I bought in the trash?

[It's a good idea to think twice before destroying anything. Some things can be reused, and it's better for the planet if they are. If you change your mind about owning something, you might find you can sell it, or give it away to someone who might value it more than you do. Before "chucking" that painting, it would be a good idea to check with the artist who painted it; he might well want it back. If people shy away from buying sculpture because they won't be able to destroy it later, those seem like buyers we don't need anyway.]

Maybe these aren't quite the same, but maybe they are.. Might be worth writing a contract that specifies that the owner must contact the artist before removing said piece before selling it next time..

[If I had it to do over again, I would. But absent contractual agreement to the contrary, the law of the land prevails. In the case of a resale within California, an artist is entitled to a small share of the proceeds. This is not so far off the "residual" compensation that actors (and now script writers) get when their work-product is reused. You can waive your rights if you wish, but if you don't, they stand.]

I would have ruled against you, not becuase the art suffers, it doesn't and it's quite nice in fact, but I think the law is more geared around deterring vandals and I don't think the intent was to vandalize, but rather redecorate and it becomes a very sticky wicket suing someone for what essentially boils down to intentional bad taste in replacing a fine sculpture with a flag pole..

[While I'm far from advocating a codification of taste, this is an entirely different issue. If you read the statute, it has little to do with deterring unofficial vandalization (which is already illegal) and everything to do with retaining our artistic legacy, something that concerns more than the interest of the owner of a piece of art, particularly if it's a publicly sited piece. Even in strictly commercial terms, getting a commission for a presumably permanent piece of public art is valuable to an artist above and beyond the price he or she is paid for it. The work stands as an advertisement for the artist, and the exposure and prestige it confers are reflected in the price. Most artists will take that into account in setting their fees, and will give the buyer more art for the money than if they were designing something for private or temporary display. I certainly gave the original buyers a screaming deal on that piece, since I was starting my sculpture career and thought it would do me good to have something on that scale to point to. On the other hand, having my name attached to a cheap aluminum flagpole was a direct blow to my reputation.

Thanks for the kind words about my late piece; I hope that if you really were on the jury (had it come to a jury trial) you would have voted differently than you indicate above, once you'd read the law and heard all the arguments.]

Sincerely;

Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-16-2008, 06:44 PM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Well you make a valid argument and I applaud you for stating your case. It's possible I may have had a different view if I were on the jury, but at least to me and looking from the outside in, it seems a contrary ruling to what I would consider "ownership"... I'd vote for the clear cutting guy too if he paid for the land and I think copyright is completely different. No one was making any money off duplicating the work etc, they were simply redecorating (poorly at that) and chose to do some new landscaping... I wonder what might have happened if another sculpture were put in its place or if something like that has happened recently on the legal books? Maybe that would sway opinion a bit more than a sorry old flag pole, I don't really know..

Anyway, I'm happy you responded and am happy for you in the end, I just wonder what kind of impact litigation of this nature has on the future purchase of sculpture in a public venue such as this.. Landowners may certainly take notice and possibly shy off from buying work from you or others in light of this case and while I'm no extremist in either position, for or against, I do think there's some sting left to be reconciled on the part of the land owners... Not all business people are as rich as all that and can't just hand over 150k or whatever for attorney's and litigants. I'm sure that hurt them.

Thanks again,

Steve
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-16-2008, 08:12 PM
Tlouis Tlouis is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 389
Angry Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I must say I do not like this sculpture, but I do recognize it as art. Not only does it bug me that the so-called owners chose to trash it rather than return it to the sculptor, but that the (greedy) lawyer took 50 percent of the settlement as commission. Isn't it usually 30 percent? What will these money grubbers expect next? 75 percent? Perhaps the sculptor might have done financially better with arbitration.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-16-2008, 08:12 PM
fritchie's Avatar
fritchie fritchie is offline
Sculptor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 3,456
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Congratulations on at least getting something for the loss of this work, Andrew. I can see both sides of the issue, but it's the law that should prevail in the end. As I said earlier, I consider it a fine work, and the world is poorer because it's gone.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-17-2008, 06:20 AM
LimeCutter's Avatar
LimeCutter LimeCutter is offline
Level 9 user
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 253
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I am with Andrew all the way on this.

There is no question that just because you own something you can do whatever you want is wrong. Particularly when it affects others.

What if the new owner of the building had put something offensive up instead of a flag pole: there would be a public outcry against it. Couldn't the owner argue "well I own it I can do whatever I want". I hope you would agree that they couldn't.

The converse should also be the case that if there is an established, publicly displayed piece of art the new owner has no right just to remove it without consultation with relevant parties; whether that's town/city councils, the public and/or the artist. The fact that it was public and the removal was highly visible should have been enough of an indication of the owners obligation lawful or otherwise

Well done Andrew

regards

Dan
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-17-2008, 08:49 AM
jOe~'s Avatar
jOe~ jOe~ is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Spokane, Wa
Posts: 3,190
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Personal opinions of ownership have no merit when a contract or law is in place. If on a jury StevenW would be instructed on how to think of ownership in terms of the law--personal bias must be set aside. If you commission a photographer to create a photograph your legal uses of it are limited by contract. You can not use or reuse it in any way you fancy. You are buying one time use unless otherwise specified. The photographer can reuse the image and owns the copyright.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-17-2008, 09:15 AM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Ahhh. so there's your nest egg... Some comfort in the lean times to have that Marilyn photo or similar.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-17-2008, 11:51 AM
Biomorph Biomorph is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york city
Posts: 135
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I'd love a brief skinny on the scope of these art protection laws. I can well see some restrictions on the buyers for some period--rules such as notification requirements before the destruction with rights in the artist to remove. However, the notion that because a piece of art is placed in a public space [and maybe not even then], it is required to be maintained there forever seems ludicrous. What, for example, about the costs and duties of maintenance, particularly if it was not well crafted to begin with. There seems to be an underlying belief here that if it's "art" [and who defines this?] it is to placed by the law above and beyond all change, something no society can ever enforce. A final--heretical--thought: what if it's a lousy piece of art to begin with [there are such]; why should it be preserved at all? biomorph
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-17-2008, 12:42 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I agree with StevenW. We live in a society that is killing itself with litigation. Our healthcare and insurance costs are out of control for that very reason. Because a law exists does not make it moral to take advantage of it for personal gain, as it may have a negative socieital affect. As StevenW points out, what if other people as a result are reluctant to commission a work of art because of the litigious baggage that they percieve may accompany the work?

When a very beautiful and time-consuming mural I had painted was painted over by the new owners of a coffehouse, I was devastated, hurt, etc. I thought many things, but generating a lawsuit was not one of them. The new owners have left the scene of the "crime" and now the space sits vacant. Perhaps covering the mural was not good karma.

Although the sculpture in question was in public view, it was on private property, comissioned by a private individual. Whether they got a great deal on it or paid too much, the artist agreed to the sale and the rights of ownership ( but not the copyrights) were transfered upon the sale. The artist benefited from the public exposure.

If the owners had decided rather than destroy the work, to bring it inside the apartment lobby or some other place away from public view, would they have the right to do so? Would such a move have generated a lawsuit? when someone buys a work of art, do they own the work, or do they just pay to lease it from the artist and need to consult the artist if they ever want to change anything about its location? If someone has bought a bronze of mine, and they decide to paint it a gaudy color to match the couch, do I have the right to sue them, or just be unhappy with their decision if I find out about it?

Of course, the owner of this sculpture should have tried to contact the artist before taking such drastic action. Out of courtesy, however, rather than out of obligation. Is there something missing in this story regarding the client/artist relation that left the owners behaving in a discourteous manner? I don't know. But a litigious artist in this case does not strike me as an artist at peace with their place in the world. Maybe the money will help.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-17-2008, 05:50 PM
Andrew Werby Andrew Werby is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 647
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I'm glad this topic has excited some interest in the sculpture community, and that people are willing to discuss the issues raised. That was a large part of my motivation in bringing the suit. If more people knew about the laws protecting art, perhaps we would lose less of it to ignorance. There were some questions raised in the last flurry of messages which I'll try to address below:

Redecoration? Like the Vikings "redecorated" Lindisfarne, the Crusaders redecorated Constantinople or the Vandals redecorated Rome? If you destroy the art, shouldn't it be called "dedecoration" instead? There has been a lot of this sort of "redecoration" going on in history, and it continues to this day in places which lack art protection laws and/or enforcement of them. Many countries that formerly lacked these laws, or didn't bother enforcing them, are now claiming their patrimonial art back from major museums around the world.

If they had brought it inside and replaced it with another sculpture (but not on the base with my name on it), no, that wouldn't have bothered me as much. Certain works are truly "site specific", which raises a different problem, but this one could have been resited. However, many privately-owned works of public art are purchased to satisfy "percent for art" requirements; in those cases putting them out of public view might constitute a violation of these agreements.

Ownership is a concept that is exalted in our society, but it's far from an absolute right. Unlike Steven, I am grateful that buying a piece of land doesn't automatically confer the right to destroy it biologically. Our land is in sad enough shape with the current inadequate set of laws that exist to protect it. And art in public places enriches us all; when it's destroyed we are all impoverished a bit. Certainly no one piece of art will please everyone, perhaps some of it pleases very few people. But even ugly art enriches the environment, particularly in contrast with the remarkably bland recently-built environment of our urban areas. It always amazes me how some people are always ready to condemn newly-installed pieces of art, while the giant faceless boxes that surround them are never even noticed. And if it's not a "recognized" piece of art, then it's not protected by the laws; that was the primary issue I had to deal with in my suit.

If people commissioning a piece of art realize that it is to be permanent, then they would be well-advised to choose a material that will require little maintenance over time, and to make sure that the craftsmanship that went into its construction was adequate. These considerations should raise the general level of public sculpture, I would think. Of course, there should be a place for ephemeral works of art as well, but the temporary nature of them should be clearly stated at the outset, and a contractual exemption granted from any duty to maintain them.

Murals have a somewhat different place in the law than movable works of art. Steve may have had a cause of action against the people who painted over his work, but it would depend on factors like the state it was in, the terms of the purchase contract, and the feasibility of removing it from the wall. He could have talked with a lawyer about it to explore his options. While of course there's no duty to start a lawsuit, it never hurts to know where one stands, legally. I don't consider myself to be "litigious", but I don't like being pushed around either; I won't let the fear of being labelled like that stop me from pushing back.


In my case, I signed a contingency agreement, which entitled my lawyer to half of any settlement proceeds after suit was filed. Curiously, this would have remained the same had the case gone to trial, but I would have been responsible for court costs, which are considerable. In retrospect, I might have done better had I paid her out of pocket, but that would have been a major drain on my slender finances. As it was, the lawyer took the risk of working for free, had there been no settlement or had we lost the case. I'm skeptical of binding arbitration as a method of settling disputes, although it's increasingly insisted on by big companies in their take-it-or-leave-it form contracts. It's quite expensive for the litigants, and arbitrators are free to act arbitrarily, while they would seem to have an interest in preserving good relations with major clients who can bring in repeat business. The court-ordered mediation process we went through was relatively quick and painless (but not exactly inexpensive); and there was no obligation to carry out the mediator's decision unless both parties agreed on a figure, as we ultimately did.

Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-17-2008, 06:49 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Again, I look at the broader picture. an owner of an appartment building decides to do something nice and comission a sculpture for his property. Nearly 25 years later, it has lost its appeal in his mind, and he decides to get rid of it. The artist sues him and wins, because , after all, it's California.
The appartment owner just lost an entire year or two of his earnings after doing a nice thing for 25 years.

So, is this person, or any other similarly-minded individual going to commission artwork directly from an artist for their property in the future?
"It ain't worth it!", they will think.
If anything, they might try Target, Chinese Joe's Knock-Off Copycat World of Art, or Garden Universe, "where we sell anything for your garden for $299 and under".

So, after earning his fee in 1982 and having 25 years of publicity, Werby and his lawyer have cleaned out the owner for making a sincere but bone-headed decision about dealing with what he thought was his own property. And the rest of us sculptors are eyed with suspicion..."Am I beholden to his wishes for the sculpture for the rest of my life because I bought his work?"

Yip yip Yahoo!!! Thanks for taking a stand for artist's rights. But two wrongs did not make this right.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-17-2008, 07:35 PM
Tlouis Tlouis is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 389
Question Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

How do you know Werby and his lawyer cleaned out the owner?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-17-2008, 10:03 PM
GlennT's Avatar
GlennT GlennT is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,213
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Actually, re-reading the post, it seems the defendant was a homeowners association rather than an individual. I made an assumption, silly me, that not everyone has an extra $150,000 laying around for emergencies like upset artist lawsuits. For the Hollywood crowd, of course, $150,000 is chump change.

I think the point I was making did not actually rest upon whether or not the defendant could afford a settlement like that. My point was whether or not a lawsuit was the right thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-17-2008, 10:22 PM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,320
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Well spirited discourse is a good thing and we can all learn from it. I guess if it were me I'd feel the same sense of loss and I'm not one to back down either in the face of being labeled and so forth. In fact, I'd refute that labeling by taking the proceeds and making an exact duplicate and I'd put it right back up there to protect my moral fortitude. Of course I'd make sure the flagpole installers had a chance to get their flagpole back.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-18-2008, 02:59 PM
LimeCutter's Avatar
LimeCutter LimeCutter is offline
Level 9 user
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 253
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennT View Post
So, is this person, or any other similarly-minded individual going to commission artwork directly from an artist for their property in the future?
"It ain't worth it!", they will think.
It wasn't the original owner/client that destroyed the piece. It is just as likely that the new owner (who did destroy the art) wouldn't have commissioned one anyway. What this case should do is prevent frivalous destruction of something that affects poeple other than those who own the piece

No-ones being punished for commissioning art, just for destroying it. Now that's a huge difference in my opinion and one that will not affect any future commisioing of art one iota. Hopefully it will just effect what we do with a piece of art once we have had enough of it.

Another two pennies

Dan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-19-2008, 10:46 AM
Biomorph Biomorph is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: new york city
Posts: 135
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I was a lawyer, now do a fair amount of fair sculpture. {Sculpture is more fun; trust me on this.} I was therefor taken by this discussion on destroying sculpture. I had nothing to do with art law, so had to dip into some literature. You might be interested in Googling VARA, the Visual Artists Rights Act; there are some good memos discussing the Act, its antecedents, and its policy. [Maybe the art schools now teach it.]
There was a very sensible consideration of the issues, and the Act, a Federal one passed in 1990, may supercede a lot of prior state laws from the '80s. It protects artists' "moral rights" including rights against destruction, misattribution, and defacement, but it is "not absolute and is tempered by commercial realities". Thus, it appears not to protect after the artist's lifetime and does appear to require that the work must be shown to have artistic value [as you can imagine, a fact question of some difficulty.] There are rules regarding works annexed to constructions with the knowledge of the seller and the purchaser. [Believe me, I would not hire a muralist without a lawyer at hand.] The rights to demand protection reside in the artist and not subsequent owners of the work. There are provisions making it clear that if the work falls apart from age, the buyer is not responsible.
It has provisions encouraging the parties to agree in writing about the buyer's responsibilites, and provides for a waiver of artist's rights.
I think VARA is a fascinating example of a attempt at legislative balance; here, the rights of the artist, the collector, and the public.
I was interested to see the number of commenting artists here who felt that legislative protection was not the best idea. I am impressed by what has been enacted and wish I had the time and community spirit to write a short summary for the group. Good treatments, however, appear to be available. biomorph
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-19-2008, 03:57 PM
jim collins jim collins is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Posts: 93
Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

Seems to me Andrew you sold this piece twice. What was the original commission? We know your lawyer, like galleries, you got 50% of the second selling. Not really a bad deal.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-20-2008, 08:59 AM
Tired Iron's Avatar
Tired Iron Tired Iron is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St.Lawrence River Valley
Posts: 535
Smile Re: Bronze Sculpture Destroyed, Artist Seeks Moral Support

I personally would like to thank Mr. Werby for sharing his experiences with us and I am glad it turned out the way it did. I also wish he could have his artwork back. I'm sure Glenn would have sided with you if you had lost the case. Glenn , you remind me of my mother.... always siding with the underdog. No matter how wrong the underdog might be! I am in the beginning stages of this whole artworld and I too have had a piece that was just installed...moved. Fortunately the group that bought the piece did so in an effort to beautify their town. The unfortunate part was that an individual with other plans for the property , bought said land two weeks after my piece was installed. The new owner did not want anything on the property, the group that bought the piece called me right away and said they would move it to another site in their town which would still have lots , if not more, public exposure. Being new at this, I was thankful to have my first public piece sold, and then to have it preserved when it could have been hauled off and deystroyed was fantastic! I wonder if Mr. Werby would have reacted differently say, in 1983, if the whole thing would have transpired then? Maybe the laws were not written to protect his interst then. This forum does just what it was intended....to help artists communicate and share happenings in their life. For that I am thankful. I am grateful for Glenn as well, what would the world be like without salt?
__________________
Semper ubi, sub ubi!



www.tiredironsculptures.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert