It is not uncommon for issues of legality to present in the media regarding an average business’s product patents, company ethics, or workers’ compensation. Such due diligence services are a necessary department in a modern day corporation. However, the world of art rarely requires the knowledge of law on as frequent a basis; as a primarily subjective marketplace, the buying and selling of art rarely faces issues of legality. But when a seller or gallery does, there are few cut and dry distinctions in law detailing what to legally do and certainly no law firms specialized in preventing art theft.
Marion Maneker is changing that. As a former editor and publisher of the Art Market Monitor news service, and founder of K2 Intelligence, a risk analysis and investigative company, Maneker has started The Art Compliance Company. He hopes to offer due diligence services by determining clear titles on works, investigating their origins, and vetting any prospective buyers. “Art Market Veterans Announce New Business Ventures” directs attention to when Knoedler & Company, a well-respected gallery, was abruptly closed down and caught in litigation for selling dozens of fake paintings as a prime example of why The Art Compliance Company is relevant. As the buying of art has become a more intricate process, simple trust between buyer and seller is unfortunately not enough to complete honest transactions. At a market topping $58 billion dollars in 2012, the global art market is growing to greater monetary heights than ever before. And people in the arts industry would value more trust and less risk now more than ever.
By offering this service, Maneker hopes to stimulate the buying and selling of art. In recent years, well-known buyers have retreated from the risky acquisition of art, lawyers have found the process of vetting too tedious themselves, and scholars have begun to refuse authenticating works for fear of putting themselves in a position to be sued. Maneker admits that one challenge will be promoting his service in a market that prizes discretion, however he is confident his business opportunity will fulfill a needed service. Other companies are also beginning to offer similar services. Art Recovery International, operated by Christopher A. Marinello, will specialize in tracking down and returning missing or stolen art. The goal is to eventually start a database of stolen art separate from the general Art Loss Register.
I think the Maneker and Marinello are both smart entrepreneurs who saw a hole in the market and took the opportunity to meet an industry’s needs. This arts issue reminded me of another article, “Passion, Principle, or Both? Deciphering Art Vandalism,” where two brothers bought various art for the sole purpose of defacing them in the act of creating their own. One issue that was repeatedly brought up in the article was whether what they were doing was ethically wrong. Although by the most basic of legality, “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” the Chapman brothers are not committing any legal felonies, they are changing the initial subject matter of the art to fit their own agenda. With The Art Compliance Company, sellers who are uncomfortable with having their art changed or unaware their art would be by certain buyers can rely on The Art Compliance Company to help smooth the selling process. This way sellers can protect their work from alterations and feel more confidence in who they are selling to.
Works Cited
Manly, Lorne. “Art Market Veterans Announce New Business Ventures.” ArtsBeat Art Market Veterans Announce New Business Ventures Comments. New York Times, 16 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
I like how you mention that Maneker and Marinello have simply kept their eyes open for a hole in the market because that is truly what this business is. The whole idea of checking legitimacy of art has been quite tedious earlier, and I’m happy someone is getting around to creating a company for this purpose.
I was a little thrown off by the idea of vetting prospective buyers; that part to me sounds a little sketchy. I understand what you’re saying about certain artists not wanting their art to be purchased for vandalizing purposes. Meanwhile, surveying prospective buyers seems kind of crazy and even borders on discrimination. I do think this might be a drawback of the company, and perhaps a task they should remove from their to-do list.
Otherwise, the two other purposes of finding titles and origins for a piece seem really intriguing and practical. This should have been done long ago, but I’m happy someone is finally dedicating a company to this purpose. It will definitely help spread the arts even more by adding legitimacy to the area of buying/selling art, which is great.
The Arts Compliance Company is an interesting concept and it really does expose a niche market. The company does present itself at the perfect time, especially with the rise of those like the Chapman brothers. The brothers popularize the idea of defacing pieces of art. Many in the arts agree that this is a problem and requires a solution. Although I do agree the concept is good, I’m not sure if the company is really doing anything new concerning the legality side. Its purpose is to protect the pieces of art that are sold to buyers. As of now whoever owns the property are allowed do whatever they wish with it. To my knowledge, artists can simply draw up contracts to protect their pieces of work. Contracts will serve as an incentive for the buyers to not deface the art unless they want to suffer financial consequences.
The Art Recovery International company’s purpose to track and recover loss art doesn’t sound feasible. I would like to know what methods they use to find loss art. Where and how do they plan to look? There are a bunch of questions I’m curious about.
The idea of starting companies to fulfill art niches are in a league of their own in the business world.
I agree with you that art lacks major legal regulations and I am glad Marion Maneker is starting a law firm for art. I don’t think we need a lot of law firms dedicated for the arts but a few is definitely necessary. Even if we don’t visibly notice it, art is actually a big market with $58 billion dollars in 2012 as you stated in your blog. Offering this service not only make transactions safer but it also encourages more trading of art. However, inspecting prospective customers might be a drawback because there is no way to tell if someone is going to buy art for vandalism purposes or not and, therefore, it will be ineffective and discouraging to customers.
I think Maneker and Marinello definitely came up with a good ideas and their company will be successful. In fact, they are the epitome of a successful entrepreneur because their ability to find holes in the market and patch them. However, I am skeptical about Marinello’s Art Recovery International because of their unrealistic goal of tracking down and recovering loss art. I am sure many groups of people have tried doing this in the past without success. It is not as easy said as done because there’s no formula for finding lost art. On the other hand, I think Maneker’s Art Compliance Company will be able to resolve cases such as the vandalism by the Chapman brothers. My personal opinion on the Chapman brothers’ case is that it should only be legal if the artist consented to their alterations. I am curious to find out if Maneker agrees with me or not.
What an interesting topic! First off, I am amazed at the possibility of making a business out of a problem affecting the art industry. As a business major, I found Marion Manekar’s and Christopher A. Marinello’s plans very innovative. In addition, I was surprised to know that arts create a market of $58 billion in our economy. It is a quite strange how this fact is not as well-established in our society, despite New York’s penchant for the arts. After reading your review, I thought about the possible directions and avenues in business. Sometimes we get so caught up with what we always hear that we don’t realize that there is a world beyond our knowledge. The field of combination of litigation and arts offers new scope that was previously unknown to us.
Because the idea is so unique, I wonder how Manekar would go about accomplishing his goal. If scholars are so afraid of the vetting process, then what room would there be for the businesspeople, who may not be as well-versed in the arts? In addition, how will the tracking system work? Will it be an international collaboration? If it is, then it would definitely bring us closer to becoming a truly interdependent society.
It is great that there could be some form of regulation in terms of authenticity of art. Like you said, the industry is becoming more and more profitable to the point where people can actually lose substantial amounts of money in this.
But it makes me wonder exactly how Manekar will go about this. After all art has had an extensive history and has been tied with religion and politics, which have both had long, unclear histories. I wonder how one piece of art would be considered more legitimate than another. Also will this be U.S focused or will this attempt the tackle the globe?
Overall I do like the idea that Manekar is doing this. He is capitalizing on a opportunity and providing a service to the public so everybody wins.
I like the point you made about Maneker and Marinello filling an opening in the market. Their companies are providing services that I would not have imagined to be necessary but clearly are. And these services will also benefit the future of the arts industry so it appears to be a win-win for everyone, except those attempting to rip-off the artists.
My only question is one that some other people raised in their comments as well: how exactly would they go about vetting who can buy art and who cannot? Maybe I’m misunderstanding the goal of that but to me it seems that they would be setting a standard for who deserves to purchase art. This goes against the basic nature of art; anyone who appreciates a piece should have the right to purchase it without proving their prowess. But I suppose this is one of the evolving principles of these new companies and we will have to see how it turns out.