Art World As Run By Morons: Need Help or Advice.
Leo Kogan
I hope some of you may have had similar experiences and can help me out
with resolving this matter. Two years ago I finished a graduate school in
Amsterdam and was picked up by a "hot" gallery in Brussels. Indeed it
started off very well but very quickly all activity subsided and I was
placed on the back burner. When trying to get other things going on my own
with another gallery in the Netherlands, across the border, I ended up being
kicked out of the gallery in Brussels.
That happened so quickly that I didn't have the time or the funds to
pick up my remaining work from the gallery. After a few months I started to
arrange for the return of the work. Finally last month I brought the work
back. When picking up the paintings I was to find out that in the meantime
the gallery switched some works around. That is a sold painting was
exchanged for an unsold one without my permission. Moreover the latter
painting happened to be more expensive than the one I got back. I also
found out that more than a few drawings were gone. The gallerist explained
that whenever they sold a painting, they included a drawing for free. Once
again they never bothered to ask me in advance if that was all right.
I sent the gallery an invoice for the difference between the two
paintings. Not only did I not get paid, I received threats that they will
make me buy all of my work back and that I will have to pay for their
storing my work for me. Needless to say all this was done in a highly
unprofessional manner, I had to listen to more sh*t I've ever listened to in
my life.
I decided not to let this matter rest and to take actions against the
gallery. If any of you have any good suggestions on what can be done here,
please reply to this post or e-mail at: leok...@wanadoo.nl
Thanks in advance,
Leo Kogan
www.leokogan.com
Matthew Montchalin
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Leo Kogan wrote:
|Hello everyone:
|
| I hope some of you may have had similar experiences and can help
|me out with resolving this matter. Two years ago I finished a graduate
|school in Amsterdam and was picked up by a "hot" gallery in Brussels.
|Indeed it started off very well but very quickly all activity subsided
|and I was placed on the back burner. When trying to get other things
|going on my own with another gallery in the Netherlands, across the
|border, I ended up being kicked out of the gallery in Brussels.
| That happened so quickly that I didn't have the time or the funds
|to pick up my remaining work from the gallery. After a few months I
|started to arrange for the return of the work. Finally last month I
|brought the work back. When picking up the paintings I was to find
|out that in the meantime the gallery switched some works around.
|That is a sold painting was exchanged for an unsold one without my
|permission. Moreover the latter painting happened to be more expensive
|than the one I got back.
The old 'switcheroo.'
|I also found out that more than a few drawings were gone. The gallerist
|explained that whenever they sold a painting, they included a drawing
|for free. Once again they never bothered to ask me in advance if that
|was all right.
This is very interesting. It sounds like this a case of 'bailment'
as well as factor, agent, and, um, maybe, principal. Anyway, they had
a duty to give back what you gave them. Switching price tags on works
sounds like a breach of the agreement you entered into. I'd think
that the art museum would be liable for the original amount specified.
| I sent the gallery an invoice for the difference between the two
|paintings. Not only did I not get paid, I received threats that they
|will make me buy all of my work back and that I will have to pay for
|their storing my work for me.
Hmmm. Can you charge them for exhibiting your work? But I doubt
that they will pay, short of being court-ordered.
|Needless to say all this was done in a highly unprofessional manner
|I had to listen to more sh*t I've ever listened to in my life.
Okay.
| I decided not to let this matter rest and to take actions
|against the gallery. If any of you have any good suggestions
|on what can be done here, please reply to this post or e-mail
|at: leok...@wanadoo.nl
How are these sorts of affairs generally resolved in court? When
you entrusted them with your art, what kind of papers were handled
and reviewed, and relied upon?
MindSpring User
I found your questions cross posted on misc.legal. I doubt that there is
much expertise in this group on the laws of the Netherlands. Try posting in
newsgroups from the Netherlands or speak to a lawyer in that country.
Dave M.
Matthew Montchalin wrote in message ...
Leo Kogan
I did not post the original message to misc.legal
I have a contacted a lawyer in this country.
I am trying to find people that may have had similar experinces and see what
steps they've taken.
Thanks for your reply.
Leo
"MindSpring User" <mart...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9f33g5$g0g$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Matthew Montchalin
|Leo,
|
| I found your questions cross posted on misc.legal.
I cross-posted them to misc.legal after reading them in us.arts.
|I doubt that there is much expertise in this group on the laws
|of the Netherlands. Try posting in newsgroups from the Netherlands
|or speak to a lawyer in that country.
I am curious how artists deal with the "old switcheroo" happening
to them here in the US.
R H Menzel
the owner was a moron, he wouldn't be able to make a living by duping
trusting artists. You obviously don't have a contract, so ...you're probably
screwed. Suck it up! It's just paper and paint so stop wasting your time.
Get on with your life, and stop trusting people! You're dealing with
artists, dealers and collectors. We don't really believe in anything but
money!
Leo Kogan <leok...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:9f182g$20dr$1...@scavenger.euro.net...
Henrietta K. Thomas
On Tue, 29 May 2001 22:33:03 +0200, "Leo Kogan" <leok...@wanadoo.nl>
wrote, in us.arts:
>Hello everyone:
>
> I hope some of you may have had similar
>experiences and can help me out with resolving
>this matter.
I am not an artist, so have not had a similar
experience, but I'd still like to comment on
your case.
Whatever you do must be done in accordance
with Belgian law, IMHO. If it was me, I'd go back
to the art school in Amsterdam, tell my story, and
ask them what they think my chances are. You
have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages
of taking action against the gallery. It may not be
worth the trip if you end up holding the bag again.
You need to talk to a lawyer you can trust who knows Belgian law and who
can properly advise you of your
rights. Otherwise, you might be better off taking
Menzel's advice to just chalk this matter up to
experience and get on with your life.
Good luck,
Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
Le Mod Pol
R H Menzel wrote:
>
> That gallery is not run by a moron. It's run by a thief. Big difference. If
> the owner was a moron, he wouldn't be able to make a living by duping
> trusting artists. You obviously don't have a contract, so ...you're probably
> Leo Kogan <leok...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
I would not let them push you around. Having no
knowledge of Dutch
law civil or criminal, it is presumptuous to give
you legal advice.
I would get a lawyer and have him or her write to
this thief (that he is) to the effect that unless
he returns the unsold work and pays in full for
the work he has sold including what he claims to
have given away as a bonus plus interest at a good
rate you will have no recourse but to take both
criminal and civil action against the gallery, the
principals, the manager, and even possibly some of
the customers.
Do not communicate with them personaly in any way.
You do not want to give the gallery etc to claim
that you in any way tried to extort anything from
them or made any threats. That is why you need a
lawyer. That is what they are trained to do.
It also will not hurt if your lawyer called a
press conference to let the public (particularly
the art buying segment) that this 'big bad wolf'
the dealer is trying to take advantage of poor
'little red riding hood' the struggling young
artist. If the letter gets no reaction in 7 days
then the publicity surely will. He has leverage
over you right now because you have no experience
in business matters, no money, and no legal help.
The lawyer, and publicity will turn it around and
beat him with the lever you will have in your hands.
Remember! Do_not_do_ANYTHING_without_a_Lawyer.
You are dead without one.
Good luck.
LP
:~)
Matthew Montchalin
|Do not communicate with them personaly in any way.
Exactly.
| You do not want to give the gallery etc to claim
|that you in any way tried to extort anything from
|them or made any threats. That is why you need a
|lawyer. That is what they are trained to do.
And they do stuff in writing, not by telephone,
which is what I would expect of a professional.
|It also will not hurt if your lawyer called a
|press conference to let the public (particularly
|the art buying segment) that this 'big bad wolf'
|the dealer is trying to take advantage of poor
|'little red riding hood' the struggling young
|artist. If the letter gets no reaction in 7 days
|then the publicity surely will. He has leverage
|over you right now because you have no experience
|in business matters, no money, and no legal help.
|
|The lawyer, and publicity will turn it around and
|beat him with the lever you will have in your hands.
|
|Remember! Do_not_do_ANYTHING_without_a_Lawyer.
|You are dead without one.
All very good advice.
Leo Kogan
If I had a contract I'd be slaving for the moron to this day. The
reason I call her (the gallerist) a moron, not a thief, because she does
happend to be a moron in addition to being, in your words, a thief. The
fact I didn't have a contract doesn't mean I don't have other hard evidence
(invoices, price lists, etc.). As far as your attitude goes I don't see how
that applies to my situation.
Really I am looking for comments from people that have had similar
experiences and how they've dealt with them.
But thanks anyway.
Leo Kogan
www.leokogan.com
Le Mod Pol
About 20 years ago some of the major art schools
included a course for seniors: The Business of
Art. But all young/new artists must realize that
it is a big business, very competitive and
sometimes cut throat.
It is hard to know who to trust. So you trust no
one, not even your spouse if the spouse is
another artist. Any understandings or agreements
must be put on paper and signed before witnesses (
independent witnesses that is) and you must
include that any disputes are to be adjudicated in
a court in the local judicial district where you live/work.
Do not be shy about it. Get it in writing and
include a guarantee of a solo or small group show
within a 12 month period.
Then the dealer has to *work* for you ~~ he has to
promote you and get on the phone to his
established clients and place your work. Even
pieces that you may want to show. It never hurts
when spectators arriving for the opening evening
or Saturday afternoon to see that some work is
already sold. Puts them in a buying mood and
sometimes evan can influence a critic.
I could sit here around the clock telling you art
biz stories from the archives of my mind. Any
body who wishes can get more details from
www.nytimes.com because it was widely reported.
It was the case of "Mark Rothko Estate and his
heirs (two minor children) vs Marlborough Gallery
Inc et al and the trustees of the estate as
individuals. Before getting into the case a bit
about Rothko and his art.
The American artist Mark Rothko, b. Dvinsk,
Russia, Sept. 25, 1903, d. Feb. 25, 1970, was the
most transcendental painter associated with
abstract expressionism. His early paintings of the
1940s are luminously pale scenes made up of
indistinct shapes that often suggest primitive
life forms floating over a background of banded
colors. By 1947, Rothko had concluded that his
earlier works, with their reference to figures and
objects, were too restrictive.
Attempting to universalize his art, Rothko began
to work with various arrangements of hovering,
rectangular areas of color. Over the next 3 years,
this format was reduced and solidified into
Rothko's mature style: 2 to 5 rectangles of
glowing color suspended one above another against
a luminous field. Number 10 (1950; Museum of
Modern Art, New York City) is an example. The
emptiness of Rothko's paintings symbolizes
humanity's spiritual yearnings; like religious
icons, these pictures are intended to evoke
humility and exaltation in the viewer. From 1958
on, his works became increasingly austere and more transcendental.
Rothko felt that his paintings were best viewed in
a light similar to that in his studio--that is, a
dim, changing light within a relatively small
exhibition area, so that the canvases might glow
and pulsate. He was uninterested in relationships
of form and color but sought to convey basic human
emotions--fear, ecstasy, dread,--by isolating the
viewer before an amorphous image conducive to
meditation. The viewer is made to feel singular,
yet part of a greater scheme.
When he died Mark Rotho left some 5 - 600 finished
unsold paintings
in his studio an immense amount for an artist of
his rank with the biggest dealer at that time in
the world representing him. Marlborough had
galleries in NY, London, Paris, Zurich, Rome, Rio,
etc. The gallery leaked word that about the
amount of usold work with a stress to the effect
that although the price of an artists work
increases upon his death that would not be the
case with Rothko because of all that work out
there it would decline.
Flash back a few years. Nothing has been said but
I think He had some fatal ailment because he
completed a large project for a chapel in Texas
and then offed himself. And just before that he
made his will leaving his estate to his children
and appointing three men whom he regarded among
his best friends, executors of his estate. One
was Theo Stamos another abstract painter with too
much Greek macho, another was his accountant named
Abrams (I think), and the third again I think was
Marc Glimcher the accountant and Glimcher both
worked for Marlborough. Well as soon as legally
permissable Marlborough bought all of the unsold
Rothko works for about 20% of their real value
even in a saturated market. This was not an arms
length transaction because 2 of the three trustees
were MG employees and MG paid Stamos off with a show.
I was at that opening (think it was '72) and Theo
was puffed up and glowing and hitting on all of
the ladies and I was poking fun at him but I
wondered aloud in front of several people why he
was having a show at that time ~ it was a huge
show in a huge gallery using all of it's space.
It was only years later that his duplicity was
revealed. The work was obviously not ready and
the show flopped. It was Stamos' Armageddon.
He did not show again for 15 Years.
A few years passed and Rothkos son started to ask
questions about what happened to his fathers
unsold work etc, etc, etc. Greeted with evasions
he was not satisfied with the answers and sought
legal counsel. All of the works were gone to UK,
France, and Switzerland many were "sold" to straw
men for warehousing purposes and some of them had
legitimately been sold to collectors. When it
came to court the CEO of Marlborough Gallery was
told that he must return EVERY painting not only
of the studio stock but also what the galleries
had in it's racks. In effect the judge said that
he did not care what they had to pay, or whether
they had to walk barefoot through alpine snow but
all of the work must be in the posession of the
court in NY before a given date or the CEO would
rot in jail until they are.
None of the parties regained their previous
prominence. All paid monetary penalties. I do
not remember if there was any jail time imposed.
That is TRUST in the wild world of Art...........
ART WHO?
LP
:~)
Le Mod Pol
Leo you should not presume anything.
I was a dealer and still am an artist
I am more familiar with the law in NY
than I am with the law in Brussels
or Amsterdam.
A friend of mine came to me with a
very similar situation except that they
also had not taken proper care, put
some works on paper in the gallery
basement where they got ruined by
a flood.
Victor was desolated. The money
loss meant less to him than the
destruction of his work.
I spent more time that day getting
Victor's fragile psyche back together
than it did to work out an equitable
settlement to Victor's benefit.
That was exactly 30 years ago.
LP
:~)
Matthew Montchalin
|heirs (two minor children) vs Marlborough Gallery
|Inc et al and the trustees of the estate as
|individuals.
Which year was the case tried? Do you know the citation for it?
<all kinds of fascinating stuff snipped>
|All of the works were gone to UK, France, and
|Switzerland many were "sold" to straw men for
|warehousing purposes and some of them had
|legitimately been sold to collectors.
hmmmm
|When it came to court the CEO of Marlborough
|Gallery was told that he must return EVERY painting
|not only of the studio stock but also what the
|galleries had in it's racks
Eyow!!! But, uh, it serves them right!
|In effect the judge said that he did not care what
|they had to pay, or whether they had to walk barefoot
|through alpine snow but all of the work must be in
|the posession of the court in NY before a given date
|or the CEO would rot in jail until they are.
And that would be pretty light punishment, I think.
|None of the parties regained their previous
|prominence. All paid monetary penalties. I do
|not remember if there was any jail time imposed.
|
|That is TRUST in the wild world of Art...........
|ART WHO?
Well, that gives me even more reason to do my
business in my home jurisdiction, with people I
can meet, and get to know... That way I would
not have to worry about slippery rascals like
corporate officers and CEO's and insiders relying
on privileged information to involve themselves
in their shenanigans...
Le Mod Pol
Matt: I think you are looking to much at the locus
part of Johnson. Since they had no case on the
merits
they tried to get it voided on a technicality of
jurisdiction, which was feeble at best and could
not fly.
In Rothko it was home. Mark had a Park Ave coop
a smallish studio for the scale that he painted
and of
course at least two thirds had to be storage racks
plus storage for paints canvas brushes rags etc.
The people he dealt with he knew, they were his
friends even the CEO of Marlborough he had
known for years. Mark was one of MG's stars for
perhaps 20 years. Abrams was his accountant that
watched his money for him did his taxes. You can
not stay closer to home than that.
:~)
LP
Matthew Montchalin
|In Rothko it was home. Mark had a Park Ave coop
|a smallish studio for the scale that he painted
|and of course at least two thirds had to be storage
|racks plus storage for paints canvas brushes rags
|etc.
Yes.
|The people he dealt with he knew, they were his
|friends even the CEO of Marlborough he had
|known for years. Mark was one of MG's stars for
|perhaps 20 years. Abrams was his accountant that
|watched his money for him did his taxes. You can
|not stay closer to home than that.
I see your point.
Leo Kogan
Didn't realize R. H. Menzel and Le Mod Pol are the same person. Or are
they? One is saying quit and "suck it up", the other gives a detailed
description how to take action on this matter. I do prefer the latter.
I'm sure the law in Brussels is pretty much the same as in NY or Amsterdam.
There was a precedent in this gallery too. Some years ago a young artist
went through pretty much the same thing, though on a bigger scale, with the
same gallery. He went to court with them and won.
The amount I'm being owed though, happens to be approximately as much as the
lawyer and court fees. But you're right it seems like this can probably
succeed only with the help of a lawyer.
Leo
"Le Mod Pol" <mod...@espmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B181704...@espmail.com...
R H Menzel
group. I talked to hundreds and hundreds of artists. I've heard all sorts of
stories. I learn from others. My advice in the last posting came from my own
and others experiences. I doubt if you'll win, but good luck in making a
lawyer rich for a few pieces of art. Tell me, when a movie is sold-out, do
you wait on the line to prove a point? Sorry to be so cynical!news:9f8vqj$sih$1...@scavenger.euro.net...
Le Mod Pol
Leo Kogan wrote:
>
> I addressed the previous comment to R.H. Menzel.
There was no indication in your post to whom you
addresses it since you failed to include and
quotations or attribution.
> Didn't realize R. H. Menzel and Le Mod Pol are the same person.
I do not know Mr (Ms?) Menzel
> One is saying quit and "suck it up", the other gives a detailed
> description how to take action on this matter. I do prefer the latter.
> I'm sure the law in Brussels is pretty much the same as in NY or Amsterdam.
> There was a precedent in this gallery too. Some years ago a young artist
> went through pretty much the same thing, though on a bigger scale, with the
> same gallery. He went to court with them and won.
That is why a letter from a lawyer should be
sufficient. Certainly, they do not want to spend
1,000 Euros to save 500, and having lost the last
time, they would be less inclined to fight at all.
Leo Kogan
I see your point.
Thanks you.
Leo