REMANDED!

.
Soft win for Buchel on Appeal -

1. VARA's protection of an artist's moral rights extends to unfinished creations that are "works of art" within the meaning of the Copyright Act;

2. The right of integrity under VARA protects artists from distortions, mutilations or modifications of their works that are prejudicial to their reputation or honor, and prejudice must be shown for both injunctive relief and damages;

3. Büchel has adduced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MASS MoCA violated his right of integrity on one of his three asserted bases for liability, namely, by modifying "Training Ground" over his objections in a manner that harmed his honor or reputation. His right-of-integrity claims based on the yellow tarpaulins and the mere display of "Training Ground" lack merit;

4. Büchel's right-of-attribution claim is moot, as VARA provides only injunctive relief to protect the right of attribution and the installation no longer exists;

5. The record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MASS MoCA violated Büchel's exclusive right under section 106(5) of the Copyright Act to display his work publicly;

6. Büchel fails to adequately develop his claim that MASS MoCA violated his exclusive right under section 106(2) to prepare derivative works based on "Training Ground," and that claim
is therefore waived.

We thus remand the case for further proceedings on Büchel’s remaining right-of-integrity claim under VARA and his public display claim under section 106 of the Copyright Act.

(the whole thing is sixty pages. i'll post interesting excerpts later...)

REVIEW:
5/16/2007 - predicting the show will never open
5/22/2007 - expecting notoriety
5/29/2007 - report from tarp show
6/12/2007 - some views
6/18/2007 - Buchel exhibits legal documents in Switzerland
7/27/2007 - tools of the master
7/30/2007 - CLANCCO cranks it up
8/20/2007 - World's First Google image search sculpture
9/05/2007 - Robert Storr VS. Nancy Spector
9/19/2007 - announcement, links to NYTimes, Brooklyn Rail...
9/21/2007 - report from the motion hearing.. part 1
9/22/2007 - report from the motion hearing... part 2
9/24/2007 - on Roberta's piece, and more
9/25/2007 - 2nd correction to Roberta's NYTimes piece
12/09/2007 - Buchel's Miami coda, with Jenny Holzer piss-take
2/15/2008 - From: Michele Maccarone
3/2/2008 - spirit of sharing
3/4/2008 - Clark Anti-Forum, aka Balancing Act by Christoph Buchel
3/27/2008 - Pissed-off Douche L., at the Armory... this was one of my favorite pieces.
9/21/2008 - Marc LeBlanc essay, with photos.
6/14/2009 - Appeal process begins; read the briefs.
9/17/2009 - Guy Ben-Ner takes the piss.

Christoph Buchel Appeal

.
Christoph Buchel Vs. Mass MoCA continues.... read the briefs -

1. Buchel's Appeal, 3/2/09
2. Mass MoCA's Brief, 4/3/09.
3. Reply Brief for Christoph Buchel, 4/22/09.

The case was argued last week in the U.S. Court of Appeals... click here to listen to the audio. I can't tell how it is going to go at all. Buchel has new counsel. Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts for Buchel, with the New York law firm of Wachtell, Rosen, Lipton & Katz and the Boston law firm K & L Gates.

UPDATE: Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento is now Assistant Director of Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. Sergio was a strident Buchel defender on his CLANCCO site. Visit Sergio's current project, a pro-Deaccessioning Blog.

REVIEW:
5/16/2007 - predicting the show will never open
5/22/2007 - expecting notoriety
5/29/2007 - report from tarp show
6/12/2007 - some views
6/18/2007 - Buchel exhibits legal documents in Switzerland
7/27/2007 - tools of the master
7/30/2007 - CLANCCO cranks it up
8/20/2007 - World's First Google image search sculpture
9/05/2007 - Robert Storr VS. Nancy Spector
9/19/2007 - announcement, links to NYTimes, Brooklyn Rail...
9/21/2007 - report from the motion hearing.. part 1
9/22/2007 - report from the motion hearing... part 2
9/24/2007 - on Roberta's piece, and more
9/25/2007 - 2nd correction to Roberta's NYTimes piece
12/09/2007 - Buchel's Miami coda, a Jenny Holzer reference
2/15/2008 - From: Michele Maccarone
3/2/2008 - spirit of sharing
3/4/2008 - Clark Anti-Forum, aka Balancing Act by Christoph Buchel
3/27/2008 - Pissed-off Douche L., at the Armory... this was one of my favorite pieces.
9/21/2008 - Marc LeBlanc essay, with photos.

Christoph Buchel

Christoph Buchel, at the Armory.

Swiss(?) children reading the transcript from the motion hearing... different children reading each role. The part recorded here is Judge Posner.
______

REVIEW:
5/16/2007 - predicting the show will never open
5/22/2007 - expecting notoriety
5/29/2007 - report from tarp show
6/12/2007 - some views
6/18/2007 - Buchel exhibits legal documents in Switzerland
7/27/2007 - tools of the master
7/30/2007 - CLANCCO cranks it up
8/20/2007 - World's First Google image search sculpture
9/05/2007 - Robert Storr VS. Nancy Spector
9/19/2007 - announcement, links to NYTimes, Brooklyn Rail...
9/21/2007 - report from the motion hearing.. part 1
9/22/2007 - report from the motion hearing... part 2
9/24/2007 - on Roberta's piece, and more
9/25/2007 - 2nd correction to Roberta's NYTimes piece
12/09/2007 - Buchel's Miami coda, with Jenny Holzer piss-take
2/15/2008 - From: Michele Maccarone
3/2/2008 - spirit of sharing
3/4/2008 - Clark Anti-Forum, aka Balancing Act by Christoph Buchel
3/27/2008 - Pissed-off Douche L., at the Armory... this was one of my favorite pieces.
9/21/2008 - Marc LeBlanc essay, with photos.
6/14/2009 - Appeal process begins; read the briefs.
9/17/2009 - Guy Ben-Ner takes the piss.
1/28/2010 - REMANDED!

Clark Anti-Forum, aka Balancing Act, by Christoph Buchel

The Clark held a "forum" (in NYC) last week -

Recent conflict between artist and institution has generated a highly publicized and polarizing debate between artists and art museums over the completion, ownership, and sale of site-specific works. In the end, who determines whether a work is “complete”? Who “owns” the work? Should the commissioning institution also benefit from the sale of a work, or parts thereof?

Did you go? Probably not, as it was unannounced and invitation-only. There is no listing for this event anywhere, including on the Clark's own website.

From the Clark, in response to my request for information -

"The Clark sends out invitations for Clark Forums - they are not public events. We do not advertise forums or include them in general event listings"

This had better not have been the promised Mass MoCA symposium.


A discussion with Barbara Gladstone, Kathy Halbreich, and Matthew Ritchie, moderated by Judith Dobrzynski. Hosted by Michael Conforti, Director of the Clark, with Joseph Thompson, Director of MASS MoCA. Tuesday, February 26, 2008. Luncheon and Program 12:00-2:00pm, at The New York Public Library, Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street.

Michele Maccarone lists Balancing Act as a current exhibition of Christoph Buchel, and Clancco features it as "A Project of Christoph Buchel" ... both of which are at least as accurate as the Clark's terming it a "forum". Someone at the Clark needs to crack open a dictionary.

Virginia Rutledge on Christoph Buchel and Mass MoCA, for ArtForum.... new spirit of sharing photos of the stalled (pre-tarp and pre-lawsuit) installation-in-progress here.

spirit of sharing

nice painting in the house.






"For Mr. Büchel the point of a continuing, obsessively detailed post-mortem seems not only to prevail in countless matters of fact but, in a larger sense, to lift the museum curtain." - Randy Kennedy, for the NYTimes

"He calls the museum's refusal to give him all the documents censorship." - Randy Kennedy, for the NYTimes

"This new series of works I have been doing is a kind of physical manifestation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression that the dispute is about" - Christoph Buchel to Randy Kennedy, for the NYTimes

"It says to the museum: You cannot shut me up. You tried, with your lawsuits and your fancy pro bono lawyers, but you cannot do it." - Christoph Buchel to Randy Kennedy, for the NYTimes

From: Michele Maccarone

To:
John Baldessari, Kris Kuramitsu, Weston Naef, Cathy Opie, Ann Philbin, Paul Schimmel;
and the Deans or Chairs of:
Art Center College of Design, California Institute of the Arts, Claremont Graduate University, Otis College of Art and Design, University of California in Irvine, University of California in Riverside, University of California in Los Angeles, and the University of Southern California

January 29, 2008

Re: LA25

Dear Colleagues,

In the summer of 2006, the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Skadden Arps) announced a three-year program, LA25, intended to aid twenty-five artists from a select group of Southern California art schools and university art departments. I write to you in order to bring to your attention the fact that Skadden Arps is also the law firm that counseled and represented the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MoCA), probono, in Mass MoCA's recent lawsuit against artist Christoph Büchel. As you may know, Mass MoCA sued Mr. Büchel in order to obtain a court ruling allowing them to distort and exhibit Mr. Büchel's artwork without his consent.

I find it very ironic and deeply unsettling that Skadden Arps has initiated this program and collection using the existing professional and highly-respected institutions in the Los Angeles art community, all the while counseling and representing an institution that not only disseminated false and negative press about an artist, but also strategically initiated a lawsuit which claimed that either Mr. Büchel's project was not art, or alternatively that the Museum was the co-author of Mr. Büchel's unfinished art work.

The lawyers of Skadden Arps were so aggressive and manipulative in their tactics against Mr. Büchel that they are now responsible, along with MassMoCA, in establishing an unprecedented decision which made it legal for a museum to exhibit an unfinished and unauthorized installation by an artistagainst her or his consent. The negative historical consequences of this matter remain to be seen, but ostensibly the impact of this aggressive and manipulative maneuver by an art institution and its representative is frightening.

I write to urge you to not participate in putting together a collection for a corporation who has challenged the authority and authenticity of a fine contemporary artist, and simultaneously diminished legal protections for the very same visual artists we all help produce, educate, nourish and support.

Yours truly,

Michele Maccarone
Maccarone Gallery
New York City

(Via Geoff Edgers, Via Clinton)

previously -

5/16/2007 - predicting the show will never open
5/22/2007 - expecting notoriety
5/29/2007 - report from tarp show
6/12/2007 - some views
6/18/2007 - Buchel exhibits legal documents in Switzerland
7/27/2007 - tools of the master
7/30/2007 - CLANCCO cranks it up
8/20/2007 - World's First Google image search sculpture
9/05/2007 - Robert Storr VS. Nancy Spector
9/19/2007 - announcement, links to NYTimes, Brooklyn Rail...
9/21/2007 - report from the motion hearing.. part 1
9/22/2007 - report from the motion hearing... part 2
9/24/2007 - on Roberta's piece, and more
9/25/2007 - 2nd correction to Roberta's NYTimes piece
12/09/2007 - Buchel's Miami Basel coda, with a Jenny Holzer reference

oooh, wicked

Did you see Christoph Buchel's Protect me from what I want Jenny Holzer reference, hidden under the schoolkid's desks of his Hauser & Wirth Miami Basel installation? I noticed it in the photo from the NYTimes slideshow.

Buchel's installation is called Training Ground for Training Ground for Democracy, a coda to his Mass Moca peter-out, and has reportedly sold for $250,000 to the Flick Collection. Jenny Holzer is the artist whose work currently occupies the Mass Moca space abandoned (held hostage? sabotaged?) by Buchel, the first artist to do so.

It's good to see Buchel back at a scale he is happily able to handle, on familiar artfair ground. He's also got a bunch of limited edition prints of his Mass Moca legal correspondence on exhibit at Maccarone's booth, beside McCarthy's chocolate Santas (as advertised in Vanity Fair). Maccarone is the anti-market gallery, or something. I'm not sure..

Make sure you click on Christoph Buchel... it's necessary to keep the world's first google image search sculpture alive.

another NYTimes B. correction... plus UPDATES

Hey, the NYTimes has changed the misleading caption in the image from the slideshow I mentioned yesterday. That was the second correction/edit they have had to make to that piece.

(that maybe explains the unusual number of NYTimes hits on my statcounter yesterday?)

Plus -

B. has filed an appeal.

Any more updates on this matter I will make to THIS post. Getting tired of every post on B.

UPDATE - it's on Slate.
UPDATE - Mass Moca is removing the materials... and,
the museum announced today that in conjunction with The Clark Art Institute, it would co-host a symposium devoted to the issues raised by this case. The symposium will be held later this fall.
UPDATE - Geoff Edgers for Boston Globe.
UPDATE - Joe Thompson e-mail to Time.

...more. (sorry)

Roberta Smith - well, I had said Roberta's lame article criticizing Mass Moca was "disappointingly redundant", adding zero insight + zero new information, but I hadn't realized exactly how redundant. Did you see the correction printed by the NYTimes? Greg Roach says on his blog -

Cherry picking quotes from old articles and using them out of context is much harder to get away with in the modern age of the internets.

The 9/16 NYTimes (on-line) article was further misleading in including the old slideshow, undated but from an earlier (5/22) feature, with the new article. The third image of the slideshow includes in it's caption "the show will open on Saturday, without Mr. Büchel’s permission or cooperation." Anybody new to this, reading the 9/16 article and clicking through that slideshow, would be misinformed, with any negative impression from the article incorrectly reinforced.

Robert Storr's irrelevance - I'm sorry, Robert Storr. Your affidavit was useless.

Roberta Smith and Robert Storr were two of the three "artworlders", along with Ken Johnson, quoted by Mark Elliott to prove that "the artworld is up in arms". Mark, please take note - three people who live in New York City, none of them artists, two of whom work for the same newspaper, is NOT a representative slice of the artworld.

Yes, there are many artists sympathetic to Buchel, including very good artist Amy Wilson. Earlier I linked to Amy's drawing/paintings made after her visit to Mass Moca, and she has since posted a blog entry expressing her outrage at the decision and hoping for Jenny Holzer to cancel her upcoming show. I mention this because I like the defense made in the comments, and the conversation that follows.

Brent Burket has snapped. Brent works at Creative Time, as does Nato Thompson, the curator of the Buchel show (Nato Thompson left Mass Moca for Creative Time early in 2007). Brent's venom has me wondering how much he is hanging out with Nato, what Nato might be saying, and under what terms Nato left Mass Moca.

UPDATE - Brent volunteers at Creative Time, doesn't work for them, and has little contact with Nato. It is true that he's snapped.

(Weirdly, Nato's current Mike Nelson show for Creative Time sounds like it could be a Christoph Buchel show. Look at these... Mike Nelson 1996, Mike Nelson 2000).

I wonder what Buchel's disclaimer language will say, assuming he adds anything? Maybe Buchel could auction off something, kind of like he did with his Manifesta slot. Like, the disclaimer could say "This is an installation by ____", and he could auction off the space for a name. Maybe Maurizio Cattelan would bid on it, or he could trade a stuffed squirrel for it.

If I had Joe Thompson's ear I would suggest that the best course of action at this point would be to NOT remove the tarps, and to dispose of the materials. There are a lot of smart artists right now that are angry at the museum, in a knee-jerk way, and it would be unwise to further exacerbate any tensions, regardless of principle.

Buchel had abandoned the installation and it was five months past the opening date. The museum had no option but to go to court. Does anybody think that if they had simply called it a loss back in May and removed the materials to a dump Buchel would not have sued? They could not open the gallery, they could not get rid of the stuff... they were at an impasse in which it appeared Buchel would be keeping the installation closed throughout the entire run. They had no option but to go to court and seek a resolution.

UPDATE 9/24: Buchel is appealing.

Christoph Buchel vs. Mass Moca... PART II

Continuing from yesterday with notes taken at the motion hearing (START HeRe for all the stuff before the break) -

After hearing arguments from Mark Elliott (for Buchel) and someone, maybe it was Kurt Wm. Hemr (for Mass Moca), Judge Ponsor called for a fifteen minute break.

40 Minutes Later -

Judge Ponsor returned and ruled that Mass Moca can show the materials, saying "nothing in VARA or in the copyright prohibits Mass Moca from exhibiting the materials assembled in Building 5", and that the museum must include with any exhibition a disclaimer, making no reference to Buchel, that the materials "constitute an unfinished project that does not carry out the installation's original intent."

Buchel has until 5pm Monday to add any language to the disclaimer, after which the museum is free to do what it wants with the materials in Building 5.

Judge Ponsor stated that he is "solidly convinced that VARA does not apply to this situation", and that "even if VARA did apply, that what Mass Moca wishes to do does not constitute a distortion to any work of art created by Mr. Buchel".

MORE from Judge Ponsor, in discussing his ruling -

- (it is a) "large complex installation", which "not only involved, but required, a large degree of lengthy and detailed collaboratation between Mr. Buchel and the museum" - this is "not a situation in which there is a co-authorship" - "an evolving organic construct that was the product of the intent, intelligence, vision, of persons other than Mr. Buchel" - "Mr. Buchel has abandoned the project. He has foresworn it" - "Mass Moca is willing to make it clear Training Ground For Democracy was never finished and should make that proviso explicit if it were to exhibit the materials" - "I doubt that this decision is going to have a great deal of precedential value" - "both parties exhibited a fair amount of naivete"... "very few businessmen that would get involved" in something of this nature without a contract - "I don't think what's going on here represents a distortion" - "after monday the museum will be free to exhibit the materials".

The judge then warned the museum "not to be over comforted by my declaratory relief... it will be scrutinized afresh" in the event of an appeal. Mark Elliott requested a stay, emphasizing possible harm to Buchel's reputation, but the stay was denied.

Judge Ponsor - "the harm to the museum is greater than the harm to the artist here"... "there is no risk to Mr. Buchel's reputation".

Marke Elliott - "we likely will appeal this".

Christoph Buchel vs. Mass Moca

Buchel lost...

(just got back. more later)

LATER... okay, it is now later. I blew the ending already (the losing of Buchel), but from here on out - after setting up the scene - I'll stick to the order in which things were said.

The Scene - Judge Ponsor... faced by three law-people on the Mass Moca side (from Skadden) and three law-people on the Buchel side (from Silberman). Seated in the spectator area were at minimum seven different reporters taking notes (including Martha Lufkin from The Art Newspaper), three people from Mass Moca (including Joe Thompson), and a handful of other people.

Judge Ponsor spoke first, about his visit to view the Mass Moca space on Tuesday, from 4:30-6:45pm -

Ponsor admitted that he "approached skeptically" and is "not a connoisseur" of contemporary art, but was "extremely moved by this piece of art...", "it is very powerful", "I have never been so powerfully ...(somethinged, maybe he said affected)... by a piece of contemporary art", and "had to take an hour just to settle down" and "woke up in the middle of the night" thinking about it.

Ponsor is "very disappointed that such a powerful piece finds itself embroiled in such legal controversies"... "this controversy doesn't belong here", it is "extremely illsuited to the courtroom". The court "urged counsel to come to an understanding".

Musings/Questions from the Judge, for the Defendant (Buchel) -

- "I ask myself whether VARA applies to an unfinished work" - "Is this situation one in which Buchel can be considered the sole author of this work of art?" - it "was highly collaborative, highly collaborative... the author was not here most of the time when the work was being completed... the museum made many decisions"

Judge Ponsor, in talking about the collaborative aspects of the aborted installation, made note of the motto emblazoned on the crashed police car in the space... Pride Partnership Professionalism - "lots of irony on that police car... did Mr. Buchel choose that? Did the museum choose that?"

- the installation is "more like a piece of architecture... tremendous amount of discussion going on... isn't Mass Moca a co-author?"

Team Silberman Speaks -

Mark Elliott did all the representing... I was surprised because I had expected it to be Donn Zaretsky. Zaretsky was one of the three law-people sitting at the Buchel table, but he never said anything. Okay, I'm just going to share here, because he never responded to my e-mail asking when the court date was, that Zaretsky was by far the scruffiest and worst dressed of anybody in the courtroom. This is just my opinion. He wasn't wearing a zoot suit exactly, but it was pinstriped and baggy, something that called to mind a zoot suit. Maybe he had a gig at a Springfield jazz club that he needed to hustle over to after the motion hearing.

Mark Elliott was okay... he argued forcefully and strenuously and super knows his shit... but, it seemed like a lot of spinning of the wheels. Lots of repetition and hyperbole, saying "the art community is up in arms!", while citing Robert Storr's irrelevant afudayvitt, Roberta Smith, Ken Johnson. I'm SURE that I'm the only one who noticed that no artist's opinions (either way) were presented.

I will interject here that while each of the two sides individually presented his case Judge Ponsor would interrupt with questions and/or comments. Such as -

- recalling his visit, marvelling at how impressive it was and the attention to detail, noting even "a snicker wrapper, which I assume was intentional"

- talking about e-mails between the museum and the artist, "Mr. Buchel at one point wants a better class of trash"

- "artists are okay, they're all right, some of my best friends are artists"

- "the artist stands in a glowing circle in the middle of this process... and... I have a bit of trouble with that"

- "showing this work will do nothing but enhance Mr. Buchel's reputation"

- "and I'm not so sure... at some point I stepped into the process and now I'm part of it.. and we're all here taking part"

- that Kafka had wanted all of his stuff destroyed and the judge is glad it wasn't. Plus a story about a long-ago composer who ordered his wife to burn his stuff, that if the judge had been there he would've taken away the match and said "I'd like to listen to that".

TEAM SKADDEN SPEAKS -

This was a bit worrisome at first. The judge was a great speaker, Elliott less so, and then the Skadden guy (name later. later, maybe Kurt Wm. Hemr) less so. His tone seemed conciliatory, and he was weirdly arguing something I'd thought the judge had already basically expressed an opinion in their favor on.

He was the least dynamic speaker, but I guess he was plodding along at his point, maybe covering a bunch of bases here (in case of appeal) and getting things on the record.

Posner asked "what is with the timidity on the part of the museum", and "why bring it to court?... you want me to go ahead of you with my robe on and say this is okay this is okay?"

Mark Elliott - this is "an absolute heresy in the artworld"

40 minute break...

BREAK HERE so I'll finish with a second post tomorrow. This is enough for now.

UPDATE 9/22/07 - Here is the second part.

motion hearing, plus... new blog # 2

The Buchel/MassMoca motion hearing (is that supposed to be capitalized? Sergio, are you there?) is scheduled for Friday the 21st, at 2pm -

U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor, in response to the museum's request for a jury trial, ordered an "inspection and photographing of the exhibit site on Aug. 17" and stated that "the court will take a view of the pertinent premises at the facility" on Sept. 18. Lawyers for each party will have a chance to argue any motions on Sept. 21, at which time the judge hopes to rule from the bench on whether the exhibit will be seen or not — or if a jury will decide.

PLUS: Mass Moca has a new blog. Here is the post in which they address some of the Buchel questions. You can leave comments.

Sergio, you know you want to!!!

Um, there has been A LOT of stuff written about this lately. Roberta Smith's piece was disappointingly redundant... nothing new worth reading. Thomas Micchelli's Brooklyn Rail piece is better.

Best new thing I have seen are the drawings of Amy Wilson.

make you laugh #1

check out the WORLD's FIRST google image search sculpture today. maybe it is different on different computers, but on this computer today it is pretty funny.

this is a fluid sculpture.

Robert Storr VS. Nancy Spector?

Robert Storr, in an affadavit written on behalf of Christoph Buchel -

“In my view, under no circumstance should a work of art be shown to the public until the artist has determined that it is finished."

Donn Zaretsky -

“This case presents questions of considerable significance in the art world: Does someone other than the visual artist have the right to decide when that artist’s work is finished or otherwise in a state suitable to be shown to the public?"

Makes me wonder about the Felix Gonzalez-Torres pools that are currently showing at the Venice Biennale. Isn't Storr the Artistic Director?

Gonzalez-Torres died in 1996, before he was ever able to realize the piece... but leaving five sketches for different versions of a work based on various proposal sites. Curator Nancy Spector suggested the piece for Venice 2007 - as "a never-before-realized sculpture"... "a new work, made from a drawing by Mr. Gonzalez-Torres but unrealized in his lifetime" - and made all fabrication and installation decisions.

Christopher Knight -

"Would Gonzalez-Torres choose Carrara marble for this location? Would he alter the pools' dimensions to accommodate this site? Would he display them on brick paving? Would he consider the work site-specific and destroy it after the show?" - It sold.

Blake Gopnik -

"Spector, for instance, has realized the reflecting pools, sketched out by Gonzalez-Torres as needing to be made in "local stone," in cliched white Carrara marble, from quarries hundreds of miles south of Venice. Gonzalez-Torres might have preferred the rose-colored stone, from nearby Verona, that the Venetian empire used for its most showy buildings."

This, the Buchel/MassMoca thing, is all so tangly. Way over my head, and I can barely stand most of them really (especially Sergio). BUT, fascinating... and I have to wonder, reading Storr's affadavit, how that squares with his view of the Gonzalez-Torres(?) sculpture, at the Biennale of which he is Artistic Director.

more from Robert Storr's affadavit -

"In sum, should a presentation be made at the sole discretion of a sponsoring institution, it not only runs counter to the interests of the artist but also to those of the public. Indeed that public is ill-served by the assumption that it will be satisfied by the experience of aesthetically incomplete works while its larger understanding of and sympathy for intrinsically challenging works of contemporary art may in the long term be substantially harmed by the confusion that inevitably arise from being confronted with works that have yet to be fully realized or resolved."

(funniest part in the affadavits - Buchel refers to the museum as Mass Coma. Ouch, that could stick)

This edition is unlimited, temporary, site-specific, and unownable

Here is a google image search sculpture. Act Fast. This edition is unlimited, temporary, site-specific, and unownable.

(It's a mock Buchel)

Clancco Cranks it Up

Sergio Munoz-Sarmiento, from the CLANCCO site I mentioned and linked to in the previous post, has posted a Buchel argument which refers to both anaba and JL of Modern Kicks, and he's re-posted it on both of our blogs in our comments sections (Modern Kicks here, me here).

Sergio doesn't link to our blogs so that his readers can decide how well (or not) he is representing us, and his blog only allows approved comments, so...

Sergio –

I was thinking that the installation, and the experience of it, was to be the artwork… but you are saying that the individual objects which were to comprise the installation are each artworks, independent of each other, and that their individual artistic autonomy is not conditional upon realization of the proposed installation.

Andre Breton defined the ready-made as “manufactured objects promoted to the dignity of objects of art through the choice of the artist”, and Marcel Duchamp never clearly defined the term.

I’m curious about how your claim applies to objects such as the house, one of the objects that Buchel has clearly expressed his rejection of… including in his statement released to the Boston Globe - “firstly, this is not the house that Christoph selected”. Two paragraphs later Buchel says “the museum ended up saving a few hundred dollars on purchasing a cheaper option of mobile home that was not approved by the artist”.

Your rape analogy is not clear to me... if, as you state in the rape comparison, “the intent of either party is irrelevant”, than couldn’t it be argued that whatever intent those objects may have initially signified became irrelevant once Buchel abandoned the project? Wouldn’t they revert back to non-art? Again, I’m not clear on what your point was there.

“To continue to argue that Büchel was not physically present when the art objects were obtained and installed is to continue the romanticized and worn our argument of authenticity, aura, and the hand-made art object—a theory eviscerated by Duchamp and which any first-year art student from any two-year institution quickly learns. As Emma Bloomfield rightly points out, “I have never heard of a ready-made be called ‘a material.’”

Ugh, Clannco, maybe I gave you to much credit when I asked those questions on your blog.

To continue arguing? Who is arguing that, or who are you saying is arguing what? I’m not getting what you’re trying to say. My belief is that the art is whatever Buchel says it is, and if he isn’t saying the unfinished installation is art, and isn’t claiming the individual objects to be art, than none of it is art, and the museum can do whatever it wants with it. I’m so into ideas of replication, reproduction, and approximation in absentia that I’d be thrilled if the museum would take the tarps off the disavowed house, clear everything else completely out of the gallery, and open the exhibition as Christoph Buchel Approximately.

Who is Emma Bloomfield? You lost me.

“The fact that the museum executed his commands to obtain and purchase the objects based on his drawings and model solidify the fact that the objects at this point were no longer materials but evidently art objects.”

I read Buchel’s statement as evidence that the museum in fact failed to execute his commands to obtain the desired materials.

“follow Skadden Arps’ wounded lead…”

Wrong. My first post on this was May 16, after visiting the museum and after reading the Geoff Edgers article, but before the museum had announced it’s decision to cancel the Buchel show and open Made at Mass Moca. I did eventually notice the Skadden ISP showing up and checking out those Buchel posts, but had no idea who they might be working for or if they were even involved, including when I posted a June 18 shout-out to them. I am not aware of any efforts by Skadden to make contact with or influence any media.

“is what any first year law student learns during the first week of law school”
+
“also known to any first year law student under contract law”
+
“which any first-year art student from any two-year institution quickly learns”
=
Super Annoying. Assuming the voice of authority is NOT working.

PLUS: here is JL's response

Tool of Master... MAJORLY UPDATED!!!!

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.

Too funny.

UPDATE 7/28/07:

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?

Christoph Buchel is LAME

It is official, Buchel is the new Cattelan. What a prankster.

Yes, as previously wondered, Buchel DID in fact get his bad-boy merchandise together for the big Basel fair! Good boy! Sit! Make Controversy! Heel! Sell! Roll Over! Snarl! Good Boy!

He's showing a big installation called Chinese Recycling Area: including camper and Meth-Lab, which this British(?) blogger describes as "a heavy (and huge) piece on (what I guess) american soldiers in the Irak war and at home..."

Buchel is also showing, and I'm NOT kidding, "a more modest, editioned work made by framing some of the documents related to the situation with MASS MoCA—letters from the museum's director, and legal papers recently filed by the museum."

GROAN-A-RAMA.

Maurizio Cattelan is to Roberto Benigni as Christoph Buchel is to Robin Williams... because sometimes you get the let's-be-serious bearded Robin Williams, and sometimes get the jester Robin Williams. Ham-fisted either way. Buchel is kind of like that.

UPDATE: I'm confused about what the title of his Basel installation is. I've read some stuff, like on Artnet, which call it Unplugged (Simply Botiful); other sources - including the one liked to above and Basel's own website - call it Chinese Recycling Area: including camper and Meth-Lab. Maybe there are two pieces or something? I don't know.

Buchel photos...

Jon Ward, someone who was working on a show at Mass Moca in February, has posted photos taken when he snuck into the off-limits Buchel space. That's funny... I did the same thing a couple months later, but I've only posted one of my photos so far. Yes, it is my painting inside "the house", I am grandstanding on Buchel's grandstanding.

Laura Berlin, writing for New York Social Diary, states -

"Swiss artist Christoph Büchel reinvents performance art and institutional critique by staging it as an installation/legal battle, despite the fact that Büchel is not endorsing the work as completed and has not authorized the museum to display it to the public."

"Despite the outrage voiced by Büchel, Büchel's lawyer, Donn Zaretsky, and Büchel's representation, Hauser & Wirth, all of whom maintain it was the museum itself which caused the project to spiral out of control — it is likely that the artist's obsessive compulsive collaborative techniques were merely a tactic in making a larger statement."

I don't give him that much credit, I think he just blew it and wants to get out of any responsibility.... but if so, it might have been a stronger statement if he had chosen a museum that was more than eight years old, maybe had a collection, maybe had an endowment, a yearly operating budget that wasn't less than a million dollars; maybe one that wasn't the only economic lifeline of a depressed milltown in Western Massachussets. Go Get'em Tiger!

From the statement for Buchel's most recent show at Hauser & Wirth -

"Büchel repeatedly manipulates and exploits the perceived power of the social and legal contract, subverting the relationship between artist and audience while insisting on a more active political role for both."

RELATED: ultra-lameness from Maurizio Cattelan, the previous Buchel... he used to be sometimes interesting, the way Buchel is now. Who will be ultimately lamer? It's too close to call.

Buchel's statement

Geoff Edgers has finished posting, in four parts, Christoph Buchel's seven-page statement summarizing his problems with Mass Moca. It's a riot.

(here is my post after my visit to the museum last weekend)