pact of climate change on tropical nations’ artistic archives. According to the statement, "much of the world's cultural heritage" is made of biodegradable materials which in "prolonged warmth and dampness, attract mould, micro-organisms and insects, causing decay and disintegration." The global temperature increase associated with climate change is thus proving disastrous for national museums and archives across the globe. As such, the report reintroduces the necessity of expanding and clarifying existing ownership laws as impoverished nations clamor to save their cultural legacies (see right). When preservation is at stake, however, difficulties historically arise as to accepted levels of multinational involvement. Not surprisingly, host nations often feel their claims at ownership are threatened when they are unable to properly maintain their archives. Establishing guidelines consequently becomes exceptionally difficult and is often mishandled. The primary concern of the creative community must thus be to ensure the safety and perseverance of art through the establishment of finite laws.With regards to issues of climate change, this is best facilitated by encouraging involvement not only from the international community but within the host nation itself. Many of the affected countries have sought to preserve their nation’s visual culture but simply lack the financial capacity to do so. The recent financial collapse has only exacerbated an already pressing issue, threatening to destroy some of the world’s greatest artistic treasures. Politics aside, the obligation of ensuring artistic preservation now rests in international hands. Current laws, however, leave the legality of such actions vague. While ensuring the preservation of existing artifacts is vital to the future of art history, the issue prompts necessary discussion concerning ownership laws and the need for further clarification. As it is, current laws attempt at establishing rightful ownership, but fail at providing absolute directives. Proprietary rights are thus left to be determined by subjective juries, the nonspecific dictates failing to standardize proceedings and leaving room for interpretation.
This need for further explication is not only relevant to issues of preservation, but extends into matters of artist’s rights and personal patronage as well. In a lawsuit symptomatic of this ambiguity, Florida resident Peter Sachs has found himself embroiled in a legal battle with Deutsches Historisches Museum. According to court papers, his father’s massive poster collection, which was seized by the Gestapo in 1938, now sits in the Berlin museum. Estimated collectively at $5.8 million, each of the 4250 posters is clearly stamped with his father's seal though only one of them has been legally returned. Judge Norbert Stobbe's asserts that the return of the poster “establishes Sachs as the rightful owner of the collection,” but the future of the remaining works is still in question. While it is likely Sachs will receive the majority of the collection, several of the posters, including the famed "Die Blonde Venus", will remain in the museum's archives. Laws concerning Nazi era art have thus been largely left unsettled. The 1998 Roundtable Discussion on Nazi-Looted Art sought to apply “international pressure” on owners and institutions of plundered works, but many of the issues raised in the proceedings failed to reach conclusion. Most significantly, many claimaints "found it difficult or impossible to lodge claims in some countries in which art, returned at the end of the war, was nationalized.” Even for those capable of filing suits, a substantial number of owners are unable to afford the exorbitant legal fees required to take these institutions to court. Until such laws are further expanded upon, many of the injustices served under the Holocaust will continue to go unaddressed and the legality of the art market will be undermined.
This failure to properly establish property laws not only threatens legal claims of ownership, but also jeopardizes the rights of
artists and their expressive freedom. Just last month, controversy erupted over the Associated Press’ decision to sue artist Shepard Fairey over the modeling of his enigmatic Obama poster after an AP photograph (see left). Though the company attempted to file suit, claiming the poster was in violation of the Fair Use Doctrine, Fairey preemptively asked a federal judge to declare him "protected from copyright infringement claims.” The artist argued that he adequately altered the portrait, “transforming” the image to “create a powerful new meaning and… a radically different message that has no analogue to the photograph.” The failure of the United State’s copyright law to properly clarify the terms of “fair use” has resulted in the heated exchange between the two parties and has ultimately prompted the photographer to get involved. Against the negative handling of Fairey, photographer Mannie Garcia has challenged the AP's ownership claims, asserting that “at no time did [he] sign the [company's] freelance contract.” As such, the problem is twofold. First, the United States has failed to adequately explain the parameters of “fair use,” a subjective term which currently rests on the personal determinations of judges. Second, while the purpose of such laws is meant to maintain the integrity of the artist, the photographer approves of Fairey’s adaptation of the image. Not only is artistic expression at stake, but the laws meant to protect artists are thus being subverted for monetary gain. In a society ridden with unnecessary lawsuits, artistic freedom will continue to be threatened until proprietary laws are clarified and standardized.Ultimately, the purpose of these statutes is to best represent the interests of artists, their works and their patrons. Ownership must no longer be determined by the partial judgements of courts but by reasonable and clear dicta. Preserving the integrity and safety of visual culture requires government involvement and sponsorship, a matter which demands extension beyond the interests of the art world. Maintaining artistic projects not only nurtures visual education and culture, but imparts societies with a means of better understanding human interaction and experience. In revisiting laws of art preservation, the international community is provided with a unique opportunity to create more concrete proprietary statutes. Artworks looted over 70 years ago have yet to be returned to their rightful owners, and new achievements are questioned for their legality. Parameters of artistic expression are being unfairly established and innumerable treasures are now threatened. As the safety and legitimacy of art is challenged, now is the time for new laws to better define and reflect the challenges of our time. Until then, the future of visual culture will be left in the hands of a select few, subjective rulings dictating the legality and preservation of the multinational art market.
I would first like to say that this post is very well organized, structured, and the message is very clearly stated. You have the ability to write complex yet cohesive paragraphs that touch on multiple facets of one topic. In response to your entry, I feel that the complexities revolving around implementing laws throughout the artistic community are especially challenging due to the simple fact that art is not intended to have any strict parameters or limitations. While law is a more hard-line concept with the least amount of interpretation being the better, art is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Misinterpretation is not only evident in the artistic community but it is often times encouraged. While it is important for art to mean different things to different people, law is supposed to mean the same thing for everyone. By the nature of the two elements, it is no wonder that it has been difficult to create international policy for art. In the case of the Associated Press claiming there was a breach in the Fair Use Doctrine, the problem is that the line between wrongful use of an image and appropriate use of an image is so blurred that the only way to create a legible law is to make ANY use of the photo illegal. But then, the creation of that law would render the picture itself completely useless.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with developing international law for art lies in the name itself. Applying an international code for ANYTHING is going to be extremely difficult, let alone art. While it is sad that much of Mr. Sach's father's art collection will remain in the Berlin Museum, determining an international standard for art reclamation would be nearly impossible to create. And if there were to be an "art entitlement constitution", could you imagine what the possible ramifications could be? People would be crawling out of corners all over the world claiming that art from their late great ancestry was in the wrongful hands of museums and institutions.
While I recognize that it is extremely difficult to create laws for the artistic community, it is obviously important for nothing more than the preservation of art. As you mentioned in your post, steps need to be made in the international community to protect art from elements not related to human dispute. Creating laws such as these would be easier to implement but they are probably not as likely to be created due to financial factors. You stated yourself, in this economic crisis, it will be much tougher to justify the use of millions of dollars towards art preservation when people are going to sleep hungry at night.