Re: droit de suite

On 04/01/2000, Larry Weiss <pgw[_at_]idt.net> wrote:
>
> The "high dudgeon" is because the proposed legislation would form
> a compulsory partnership between the owner of the work and the
> person from whom he thought he bought it.

I don't see how this differs from the licensing of computer software, which establishes a compulsory relation ship between buyer and seller.

I think the underlying issue is that you want to reduce any work of art to no more than the meanest commodity, a mere case of mayonnaise. Buy the Mona Lisa and it's your your yours. By your reasoning you now have the "right" to destroy it, alter it, change the signature to your own, deface it, forbid others to see it, forbid photos being taken or reproduced, efface all memory that it had ever existed. You're taking a position antipathetic to art and what you're basically asserting is either that anything can be bought or that whatever can't be commodified doesn't deserve to be considered. Or you regard your perceived "rights" as superior to the right of others because your "rights" would be backed up by money.

I notice that for you art is even less than the meanest commodity. You have a perceived "right" to make a profit on art, and you ask whether the artist should be compelled to reimburse you should you resell the painting at a loss. I'm not sure what the basis is in law for your asserted "right" to make a profit on art. As I understand the uniform commercial code, buying a case of mayonnaise conveys no "right" to resell that case of mayonnaise at a profit.

I surely don't know how these "rights" you're asserting would fare in the courts, as the law seems ambiguous in this area. And, anyway you haven't put your money where your mouth is by buying a famous painting and destroying it to show that this is your "right." So let me just sketch the opposing view: that there actually are values in life other than money. I'm sure you're aware that art is kept in museums for the benefit of people who like to look at it, and who don't feel any particular urge to own it. We might imagine a delegation of these people gathering, perhaps accompanied by the ghost of the artist. They're asking you to spare the Mona Lisa as you're about to put it to the torch. Very heart rending. But not much room for dialogue. You of course respond, "tough luck, I own it; it's my right."

Something similar comes up fairly often, though the owner is generally less adversarial than you. An owner wants to sell out of the country a work regarded as a national treasure. The owner in many or most cases is cooperative with fund-raising efforts that seek the end of buying the work in order to keep it in the nation. But this is a simple buy-sell situation where the owner just wants his money. My sense is that you want more -- that it's important to you to show how much contempt you have for art and artists. Certainly many people feel this way, and as you're not asserting a right to buy churches or hospitals to burn them down, it might be particularly art and artists that you see impinging on your "rights" in some way you resent.

My point, in any case, is that not everyone sees it as you do. I don't happen to think the uniform commercial code works for art, or that it's advisable to demote art to the standing of no more than a speculative commodity. We should ship you back to medieval India, where the Taj Mahal was so beautiful that the Shah put out the architect's eyes, to prevent his ever building anything else as beautiful. The Shah was in control, and figured this was his "right." Unfortunately, we don't have much basis in law today for backing up your perceived "right" to make a profit on art by, say, cutting off the hands or putting out the eyes of any artist (or any stockbroker?) so base as to sell you anything you might have to resell at a loss.

By the way, do you actually buy and sell art, or is your passion in this area largely theoretical? You maybe ought to consult your financial adviser, as I understand there's much more money to be made at the moment in internet startups than one could ever hope to bleed out of art. If the auction houses haven't affiliated with discount brokerages to date, I'd expect to see this in the near future. I personally wouldn't consider it a catastrophe if they got out of the art business altogether.

pat sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Sat Apr 01 2000 - 20:43:13 GMT