Comments on: Is it okay to show art against the artist’s will?

By: Tina Mammoser

Tina Mammoser — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:40:17 +0000

I know this is an older post now but just got this Art Newspaper update in my in box that people might be interested in. This is how it’s being reported by the international art press anyway: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=4565 Tina.

By: Judith Monroe

Judith Monroe — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:20:10 +0000

I’m even later to this party, but after having looked at all of it, I think this is just a case of breach of contract on the part of Buchel – does he haven any idea how many artists he is hurting with his behavoir? He agreed to a legal contract, he accepted money – an amazing amount of money, nearly twice what was originally offered – and he still can’t find a way to work it out? What about customer service? What about being gracious? Alyson, you talk in today’s post about being careful how to repsond to a vague, fishing email – how much more of a responisiblity does Buchel have to try to work this out? Good grief, how about he give me the $300,000 and I’ll go finish it up? I would be thrilled to be given the offer and so would hundreds of other artists; I truly cannot justifiy any of his actions in this.

By: John E. Mitchell

John E. Mitchell — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:41:04 +0000

I think the key is that Buchel was invited to create a piece for the space, yes? The museum was provided him with space, resources and budget. If this was something he did on his own and MoCA were taking it and doing as they pleased, I don’t see that anyone would be on their side. Regardless, the Smith piece is severely flawed. She doesn’t seem to understand the context in which this work was commissioned and created, nor the mission of the venue.

By: ming

ming — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:34:18 +0000

artist makes mistakes. and so do galleries. this seems a story of mistakes without soloutions. it also seems a story of 2 egos. everyone else suffers

By: Joshua Field

Joshua Field — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:25:17 +0000

As an artist living in North Adams, MA , the town where MASS MoCA is located (I am in no way affiliated with the museum), I think it is important to note a crucial component missing from the dialog and that is the responsibility of the museum and the artist to the community in which they are working. MASS MoCA was built as an economic driver in a struggling mill town that had lost its core industry. The idea was always to try to revitalize the local economy through culture. Buchel has demonstrated a penchant for pranks that question the art business (in 2002 he sold his invite to Manifesta for $15,000 on ebay) and apparently has no regard for the working class people of this region who rely on the tourism that MASS MoCA generates for subsistance. I am generally very protective of artists’ rights but I think this is an unfortunate example of the artist not being sensitive to the situation. When do the rights of the artist supersede the responsibility that artists have within a community? I would argue that this stunt would have been more appropriately executed at a larger, more endowed institution instead. As an artist, I count on artists to enrich our society and to question authority, but not at the expense of an already economically depressed community. Either Buchel didn’t do his homework or, if he did, shame on him for ignoring the impact of his actions in order to bolster his own ego.

By: Laura Tyler

Laura Tyler — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:18:26 +0000

Thanks for pointing this out, Alyson. It’s an intersting article, gorgeously and sensitively written by Roberta Smith. Christine – she addresses the “artist-as-pain-in-the-a$$” angle in depth and still comes down on the side of the artist – a brave and energzing stance. I know it’s tempting to view this artist as ungrateful and uncooperative, unwilling to compromise. But what good art has ever come from compromise? It takes uncompromising vision to play with the big dogs and I applaud the artist for sticking to his vision.

By: Christine DeCamp

Christine DeCamp — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:17:11 +0000

I read about this awhile ago..and I can’t remember where. But my take on the situation was much different. The idea of art being shown against the artist’s will is one of those “hit you in the gut” sentiments. (“Of course not!” we reply) However, from what I read about the situation, it could be argued that the museum was collaborating with the artist on this project. The museum was funding the project on a grand scale, and the artist walked off the job & refused to communicate with the museum, according to what I read. This kind of situation hurts museums, and hurts artists who are trying to get assistance with large projects. Personally, I read it as another attention-getting scenario on the part of the artist. He’s probably best friends with Jeff Koons.