oh no... more B. -
Edward Winkleman made a post which starts off stating that he has learned, "via Christoph Buchel's lawyer, Donn Zaretsky, that Sergio Munoz Sarmiento has weighed in on the Büchel vs. Mass MoCA court battle".
What is most funny about this post is that when I saw it this (Thursday) afternoon around 3pm, there was nothing new on Zaretsky's blog about Buchel. A mysterious and concerned someone immediately left Winkleman a comment asking "via donn zaretsky means zaretsky contacted you about this? i didn't see anything new on the blog"... and then, VOILA!, less than half an hour later Zaretsky updates his blog with the information. Ed never replied.
So, why is Donn Zaretsky apparently contacting sympathetic cut-and-pasters? I mean, if the Buchel position is so strong? Why try so hard to court and shape public opinion? It seems pretty obvious, with that quick posting, that he is paying close attention to the comments.
If you are interested in all this Buchel stuff, make sure to click the Buchel label, which will give you ALL the posts, in reverse chronological order. Here is the post, with pictures, on my visit to the Made at Mass Moca show.
AFC has a short list of links to some of the more recent Buchel stuff, the most generally informative of which is probably this ArtInfo feature by William Hanley, which also talks about the different approaches the opposing lawyers are taking in the public relations battle. The problem with this article is that it makes no mention of Buchel's history of pranks and chain-yanking... which seems so relevant, right?
The CLANCCO site is pretty good also, lots of the legal stuff, and he's arguing for the artist... but I'm not buying/getting the premise of his argument, that they are arguing over an artwork. It's misleading, and the reaction of anyone sympathetic to artists (including myself) would be to get worked up that the museum is out of line.
But is Buchel calling this an artwork? Is the museum calling this an artwork? My understanding is that neither party is claiming this to be an artwork. Buchel's statements have claimed that the museum purchased many of the wrong items, not the items he requested or would have chosen... Buchel has also stated that the abandoned installation is less than half completed.
If it isn't the stuff he would have chosen, gathered in different piles than he would have liked, less than half finished, and the museum isn't claiming it to be a work by Buchel... how does the VARA stuff apply?
How would it be any different from - or any "worse" than - the Triple Candie show of Cady Noland, "Cady Noland Approximately"? Read these two reviews to know what the Triple Candie show was about: Joe Fyfe liked it, Jerry Saltz didn't like it. Actually, Jerry didn't like it so much he was still talking about it, at this lecture, six months later.
Could the museum throw all of that stuff in a field for a year, bring it back next summer, and have a mock Christoph Buchel exhibition? Could someone buy, or probably offer to haul away for free, all of the abandoned Buchel junk from Mass Moca, bring it down to Harlem and have a "Christoph Buchel Approximately" show at Triple Candie?
How does VARA apply to stuff like Henry Darger, who - in a hospital and knowing he would never be able to return to his apartment - instructed his landlord to destroy any drawings or journals he might find? How come a museum can have a Darger exhibit?