The Arts in New York City | Baruch Fall 2013 Macaulay Seminar 1

NY Times Blog Post: Protecting Art

Posted on October 18, 2013 by Lisa Huang

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.

New York Times Article – Josh Hirth

Posted on October 18, 2013 by Joshua Hirth

The New York Times article entitled “Legal Tussle Over Statue Turns Nasty” discusses a controversial legal battle regarding an ancient Cambodian statue. In March of 2011 a Cambodian sand statue depicting the god Duryodhana was intended to go up for auction at Sotheby’s New York. Before the auction took place, it was withdrawn from bidding because the statue was purportedly stolen from Cambodia. The Cambodian government claimed to be the rightful owners of this masterwork while Sotheby’s asserted that there was no evidence that this object was stolen. Since then, the American government has been working on behalf of the Cambodian government to regain control of this important piece of Cambodian history. The Duryodhana is from the 10^th century and has been valued at more then three million dollars, elevating the stakes of this case to substantial heights.

For Sotheby, one of the world’s premier auction houses, this case has left an indelible mark on their reputation. Being sued for possibly selling a stolen item leaves art enthusiasts fearful that one day they could buy an object from Sotheby’s and be caught in a tangle of legal fights for their ownership. Further complicating the case is a woman named Ms. Levine, a former prosecutor for the United States Attorneys Office and now the director of the worldwide legal compliance department of Sotheby’s. She is being accused of misleading government officials about the history of the piece. The problem was thought to be solved when of Istvan Zelnik, a Hungarian art collector, stated that he would buy the statue for one million dollars and then donate the piece back to Cambodia. However, the American government wanted to be the heroes of this case after all their hard work and thus refused his offer. This seeming arrogance of the American Government questions their motivation of becoming involved with this case.

To me, this article raises the question of ownership of ancient art. Who has the right to claim ownership over an ancient item? Does the current Cambodian government own it just because it belonged to previous monarchs and rulers of that land? What do you think?

Mashberg, Tom. “Legal Tussle Over Statue Turns Nasty.” The New York Times. 13 Sept. 2013. 23 Sept. 2013.

New York Times Arts Blog: Slavery, Movies, and the Unglamorous Truth

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Tiffany Chan

Many American movies have attempted to capture the oppressive lives of slaves during a heinous time in our history. But, the harsh realities of these accounts are often concealed by less graphic, and more pleasant, experiences. In his review, “The Blood and Tears, Not the Magnolias,” Manohla Dargis claims that “12 Years a Slave,” a new movie directed by Steve McQueen, “may be the one that finally makes it impossible for American cinema to continue to sell the ugly lies it’s been hawking for more than a century.”

http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/fox-searchlight-positions-12-years-a-slave-for-dec-27th-release/

This biographical film is based on the true story of Solomon Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), a freeman of African descent, who was seized in Washington and subsequently enslaved in the pre-Civil War era. Upon being captured, he becomes a victim of torture, abuse, and long hours of fieldwork. Failing to mention any generous masters or optimistic slaves, McQueen deliberately depicts Northup’s near-lynching and gruesome encounters with a drunk, violent master to emphasize human suffering, a brutal aspect of slavery that is frequently neglected by artists. According to Dargis, the movie “holds nothing back in the show of suffering.”

What sets Northup’s story apart from typical slave narratives is his eagerness to live and regain his freedom. Having once been a freeman in New York, with the liberty to walk in public with his wife and children, he does not fully accept the fact that he now holds the same value as property, even as he is bound and repeatedly sold to different masters. Rather than focusing on visual appeal in his movie, McQueen highlights Northup’s unwavering desire for independence.

I think McQueen’s authentic approach towards his film is a crucial and effective means of revealing the unglamorous truth. It is not uncommon for artists to mask the atrocious reality with more reassuring fiction since such tales are favored by moviegoers. However, I believe that it is important to convey the facts because it adds meaning and relevance to art. The blatant truth can be just as, if not more, inspiring and captivating than the charming lies that viewers generally like to hear.

In addition to that, many modern directors choose to direct more attention to the aesthetic appeal of their pieces in order to attract audiences, forgetting about the initial intention of their work. They don’t realize that the actual content can engage observers just as well. This applies not only to movie directors, but also to all artists.

Though I have not yet seen the movie, I think “12 Years a Slave” is a must-see, judging by its great reviews. Many people prefer to watch alluring lies and films with happy, fairytale endings. But watching depictions of the truth can give us a better understanding of past conditions and reality.

Link to Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/movies/12-years-a-slave-holds-nothing-back-in-show-of-suffering.html?ref=movies

Sources:

Dargis, Manohla. “The Blood and Tears, Not the Magnolias – ’12 Years a Slave’ Holds Nothing Back in Show of Suffering.” Rev. of 12 Years a Slave. The New York Times 18 Oct. 2013: n. pag. Print.

“12 Years a Slave.” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2024544/>.

NY Times Arts Blog: Just Another Romeo and Juliet Adaptation

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Ariel Yuan

Voltaire once said, “Originality is nothing more than judicious imitation. The most original writers borrow one from another.” And to an extent, Voltaire is right. Many works of art are mere replicas of a previous work. Although most writers, directors, etc. constantly reinvent and manipulate common themes by adding their own interpretations, the basic skeleton is always the same. A prime example are adaptations. And yet again, William Shakespeare’s classic play, Romeo and Juliet, is being adapted.

When I first heard of another movie adaptation of this classic, I was skeptical. Romeo and Juliet has been done over and over and over again. From movies to broadway shows to ballets, how many versions can stem from one play?

Well now, Julian Fellowes is tackling the iconic Shakespearean play. Adapted by Fellowes and directed by Carlo Carlei, this new Romeo and Juliet movie retells the story of two star-crossed lovers in Verona. Although the movie follows the basic outline of the play, Fellowes has taken many liberties with the script and made many alterations. Addressing his alterations to the text, Fellows stated that in order “to see the original in its absolutely unchanged form, you require a kind of Shakespearean scholarship and you need to understand the language and analyze it and so on.” Basically, Fellowes says the general public is not intelligent enough to understand Shakespeare’s work in the original language. Although majority of the public may not fully comprehend Shakespearean language, does that justify changing the original dialogue? After all, Franco Zeffierlli’s 1968 film adaptation with original Shakespearean dialogue received positive reviews, multiple accolades, and much success.

In addition, Manohla Dargis’ review on the New York Times criticizes the films lack of depth and passion. Dargis asserts that although the movie is sufficiently entertaining, overall the film relies too much on looks and the “prettiness” of the characters. Despite their attractiveness, Haliee Steinfeld as Juliet Capulet and Douglas Booth as Romeo Montague make an awkward couple and lack the intense love and urgency the characters possess in the original work.

Since I have not seen the film, I can not determine whether the movie is a successful adaptation or not; however, after watching the trailer, I do see where Dargis is coming from. However, despite Dargis’ mediocre review of Romeo and Juliet, I am still interested in how Fellowes puts his own spin on the Shakespearean play to create a new version of an old classic.

Citations

Dargis, Manohla. “Oh Hey, Romeo, What’s Up?” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/movies/romeo-juliet-adapted-by-julian-fellowes.html?ref=movies

What will be the City’s future?

Posted on October 17, 2013 by kenconnolly3

Everything around us on a daily basis, the architecture of the buildings, the sidewalks, the bike lanes; everything comes together in a perfect harmony in the city, may change. With an new mayor coming in January 1st of this year, with them coming in will bring some big changes. The article that I read (can be seen here) says that extending PlaNYC, a plan to help the city, made by current Mayor Bloomberg, is a no brainer for the new mayor. Examples of some of the things seen in the plan are: “extending the bike lanes, bike shares, the plaza program, rapid-bus service, the High Line and the No. 7 subway;”. Which all try to push the city in the direction of a greener system, to lessen our pollution and environmental impact, which I personally think is awesome. The bike lanes are highly important in the city, NYC was named one of the best biking cities in America recently.

But what does this have to do with the arts you ask? Well the mayor has the ability to choose if architecture and future thinking is the most important thing or if present problems are more vital. The architecture of the city is rivaled by few and is my personal biggest appeal to the city. If they could potentially add to the Manhattan skyline in classy and well done ways I would be ecstatic. When I walk around the city at night I look around at the buildings and become overcome with a sense of awe. The enormous size and sleekness of the buildings are something I could look at for hours.

Theres not denying the fact that New York City is a unique city. It is faster paced, pushes the boundaries of architecture, arts, and culture; NYC is in my opinion the best city in the world. It houses millions of individual artists, free thinkers, and in general creative people. With so many creative people being so close in proximity the natural result is a renaissance like culture where it is constantly pushing the boundaries of art and questioning society.

The new mayor “could coordinate parks, schools, transportation, landmarks, buildings and small-business development” all of which could beautify the city and make it a more pleasant place to live. I believe that the city should be clean with a large amount of parks and open areas, to help encourage creativity. The environment of the city determines who wants to live here and the better the environment for creative people will attract more arts and help develop further the culture of this diverse and exciting city.

The way this article talk about the massive potential the mayor has to change this city for the better has me extremely optimistic. I think that with the right leadership the best city in the world could become a little cleaner, more efficient and a better place to house creation.

My question to anyone who is reading this, what do you think the mayor should do/could do to help make NYC a better place for the Arts? What would you like to see be done?

Absurdity that Rivals “The Nose”

Posted on October 17, 2013 by sanso

In 2011 the art market was a staggering 52 billion dollar industry, the largest it has been in history. It sounded like great news when I first read it. I reasoned there was more money for artists and the people who sell their paintings. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

In an ironic twist of fate, the increase in money flowing into the art market has inflated the price of art so drastically that if a company or private dealer deems a painting to be fake, a law suite often follows against the inspector. As a result many companies that sell art verified pieces for potential clients have shifted ceased to continue confirming art work. This makes it much more difficult for the art market to vet out forgeries as no reputable inspector is willing to deem a piece of art “false” for fear of a lawsuit. At the same time, the rewards of forging art have ballooned with the increase in art prices while the risks have dropped with the reduction in inspectors. In a nutshell, the art market has never been more ripe for forgeries.

But I for one won’t shed a tear. In fact, I find it kind of satisfying that conditions are perfect for forgeries. To me, the art market looks much like a scene that Gogol might have written after he finished “The Nose.” Today’s art market reflects on the absurdity of everyone involved. I find it ridiculous that extremely wealthy individuals spend millions of dollars on art pieces that they can not even authenticate themselves. It is mind boggling. In fact, if the purchaser of the art can not verify the piece as belonging to a specific artist him/herself, then what reason might they have for buying the piece? If the buyer of the piece is only interested in the piece for its aesthetic appeal, than the forgery that they can not differentiate from the real piece should be just as valuable. If on the other hand the purchaser of the art buys the art because of the name attached to the piece, then he/she is really buying prestige. So instead of an art market where people buy pieces of art because of the emotions they invoke or the statements they make, we have an art market in which extremely rich people drop huge sums of money on famous pieces so that they can brag about their collection. Its a giant spending game to see who can buy the finest nose.

Unknown

(can you tell the which picture is Picasso’s and which is a forgery? Most people who own a Picasso painting can’t either)

I for one hope that the prices of these art paintings come crashing down, just low enough so that the art inspectors who actually appreciate the paintings can buy the work. I think Gogol would hope for the same.

It seems as though the works of past generations, made only for of the love of art have been just as tainted by commercialization as those pieces crafted today which are influenced by the preferences of sponsors and potential buyers. The expanding of the art market will, eventually lead to the fine-tuning of forgeries at the same time that inspection agencies and methods become the weakest they have been in decades. This disastrous environment will, unfortunately, place an asterisk next to the authenticity of every painting as buyers will wonder if this is a painting by a famed artist or just the next latest in a long line of forgeries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/arts/design/art-scholars-fear-lawsuits-in-declaring-works-real-or-fake.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&

Guitar New York Times

Posted on October 16, 2013 by joshcsolom94

I love guitars. People all over the world play them both for fun and professionally. But how did a guitar come to be? When were they created? How did it get the design it has today? All of these answers are found in the article:

Christian F. Martin was the man responsible for the guitar. A book, “Inventing the American Guitar” will be on sale next week, explaining the life of Martin and how his entrepreneurial success led him to his creation. Also, there will be a year-long exhibition of some of Martin’s guitars at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

“He [Martin] was always modifying things, pushing the limits,” co-editor of the book, Peter Szego said, and, “by the late 1840s, was making a guitar that, except for its size, had all the main attributes of today’s Martin guitar.” Martin actually made the first guitars here in America, in stores in Pennsylvania and New York City.

C. F. Martin immigrated to the US from Saxony, Germany. He had much knowledge about musical instruments before he came to America because he had worked in an apprenticeship in Europe. However, he went right into the American Capitalism system with his brilliant idea.

martin guitar

Martin’s biggest influence, the book argues, was the Spanish. Martin totally changed the Austro-German system of lateral bracing that reinforced the guitar soundboard and changed to a Spanish-style, which he then created the X-bracing style that many guitars have today.

Various artists testimony along with vivid pictures of some of Martin’s guitars will be featured in the book as well. Starting on January 14th, some of these famous guitars, along with other pieces such as mandolinsand ukeleles, will be put on display at the Met, titled “Early American Guitars: The Instruments of C. F. Martin.”

These instruments are now being called pieces of “art” which goes back to the question “what is art?” Obviously, these unique guitars are creative enough to go on display in a museum, which by definition is art in itself.

Martin guitars are still being produced today! About 48,000 guitars are sold each year, ranging from $1,500 to $11,000. It’s insane that this same company has been doing this for over 170 years and are still strong today.

Works Cited:

Rohter, Larry. “Roll Over, Stradivarius ‘Inventing the American Guitar’ Explores 1840s Innovations.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Oct 2013. Web. 15 Oct 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/books/inventing-the-american-guitar-explores-1840s-innovations.html?ref=arts>.

Shakespeare with a Hint of Sugar, Spice, and Everything Nice

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Evans Charles Augustin

One of William Shakespeare’s greatest pieces “Julius Caesar” is a classic, which has been adapted in many different ways over the years. But the all women cast of the Donmar Warehouse in London and director Phyllida Lloyd have created a new spin on the play with their gender role reversed story. This play, which opened at St. Ann’s Warehouse in Brooklyn, is set in a women’s prison and dives deep into a pit of jealousy and avarice for power within a hierarchal system.

10JCAESAR-articleLarge

The fact that it is an all women performance does not detract from the bravado and machismo the original “Julius Caesar” displayed. The writer of this article Ben Brantley mentions, “this interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s most manly tragedies, generates a higher testosterone level than any I have seen.” The use of a prison setting to display this work is not an untried method, neither is the use of gender reversal; but the use of both methods simultaneously creates an avant-garde work that is increasingly intense. Brantley comments on how even before the beginning of the play it immerses you into its world. Upon entering the audience members are marshaled in through a no-exit holding pen by uniformed jailers. They are then seated to behold a gloomy common room used for recreation in which soon they play would begin.

Some of the cast includes Ms. Frances Barber who commands the role of Caesar in the most butch sense. Caesar dominates over the prison with an iron fist, keeping “his Rome” organized. He goes as far as to physically abuse his fellow inmates and his wife Calpurnia played by Jade Anouka. Brantley says, “It sometimes takes a woman to show us what men are truly made of.” The fact that women are playing men mocks some of accepted masculine ideals of power and provides women a voice, were as in Shakespeare’s original male ruled work women have scarcely any power.

I believe a performance like this promotes women empowerment and gives new life and a modern spin to the classic. I would not mind seeing more performances like this, in which new viewpoints are provided to commonly known subjects. I believe that art is open to interpretation and allows people to either relate to the artist message or inspire new ideas and concepts.

I would like to know if you believe the use of gender role reversal in plays and other works of art would diminish the power and message of a piece, or provide a new clarity or interpretation?

Works Cited

Brantley, Ben. “Friends, Romans, Countrywomen” New York Times Theater Review. 9 Oct. 2013: C1. http://theater.nytimes.com. Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

Glee Meets Loss

Posted on October 11, 2013 by katie

Amy Winehouse, Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson – the media goes wild when a celebrity dies of a drug overdose. It does so because people love to read about it; celebrities are forcibly held to moral standards as role models and when they don’t live up to them, their drug-related deaths garner attention that the media takes advantage of. Last week, Glee, the drama-comedy musical television series, had to catch up with the death of one of its main actors, Cory Monteith, who died of an alcohol and heroin overdose in July. It did so by addressing not Monteith’s drug use, but the death of a close friend. While I applaud Glee for not exploiting Monteith’s death as a way to garner views and attention, I do feel that the show fails to properly deal with the real life problems it attempts to address such as the loss of a loved one.

While Cory Monteith struggled with addiction issues, Finn Hudson was a straight edge, singing jock-turned-teacher and it wouldn’t have made sense to suddenly say that Finn died of an overdose. I’m glad that Glee stuck with the plotline and didn’t take Monteith’s death as a chance to impose condescension towards drug users. The latter course of action is what I had expected the show to do. After all, Glee is most often a very “happy” show dealing with idealistic teenage dreams to become rich and famous as talented show performers. The show does often try to bring up serious teen problems in a way that reminds me of the darker Canadian Degrassi but the characters of Glee are much less complex and dimensional, often having easy quick-fix solutions or leaving their issues hanging without much of an explanation.

I was pleasantly surprised that Glee chose to honor Monteith by taking on a celebrating-his-life-not-his-death attitude; in fact, the show doesn’t mention how Finn dies. His step-brother, Kurt, opens the issue by saying, “Everyone wants to talk about how he died, too, but who cares? One moment in his whole life; I care more about how he lived.” I appreciate the show’s push for American youth to gain more tolerance of its peers. Glee does just that, featuring a group of misfits as its main cast and introducing a transgender character in its second season.

However, I was disappointed by the way Glee addressed the aftermath of Monteith/Hudson’s death, much like the way it has addressed its characters’ previous issues that include self-consciousness, teen pregnancy and sex. The episode included attempts to include humor with trite and superficial thoughts on dealing with Cory’s death, such as Tina’s dismay at having to wear the color black: “I just don’t know how much longer I can do this… This look is so Tina two years ago,” and Puck’s “If I start crying, I don’t think I’ll ever stop.” Sue Sylvester offered some tough love with advice on paying tribute “by not making a self-serving spectacle of our own sadness.”

By jumping around to the show’s many characters, Glee showed snippets of the ways people reacted to and dealt with death, but by not delving into deeper reactions and solutions to dealing with grief that are actually helpful, Glee ultimately fails to get past a superficial acknowledgement of real teen problems.

Stanley, Alessandra. “‘Glee’ Addresses the Loss of Cory Monteith.” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://tv.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/arts/television/glee-addresses-the-loss-of-cory-monteith.html?ref=television>.

What Does the Fox Say?

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Samantha Chiu

If compared to artists like Katy Perry or Lady Gaga, would you think of the Ylvisaker brothers? Just now, did you wonder who they were? Or did you already know them as Ylvis, the pop sensations behind “The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?)“? According to New York Times, Ylvis have already reached No. 6 on Billboard’s Hot 100 singles chart, and sold 75,000 copies of their song.

Peter Gray, senior vice president for promotion of Warner Brothers Records, says, “There are a lot of hit songs that people have put major muscle and campaigns behind, for months and months, that aren’t selling half of that, or a quarter of that.” But, according to the New York Times article, Ylvis’ sales were reached without any major promotions. And thus leads us to the question, does art require effort or talents? Because even Ylvis did not plan for their “prank to backfire” into something so popular.

I think art requires both. There is Edison’s famous quote: “Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% precipitation.” We all understand that talent is nothing without hard work, but then the quote can also be interpreted as, “hard work means nothing without that flash of inspiration.” (“Captive Butterfly”)

Take for example Psy and last year’s popular song, “Gangnam Style.” In that flash of inspiration that Psy saw, he produced an international hit song. It’s not like he’s not putting in effort though, because he released another song. But without that flash of inspiration, “Gentlmen” was not as well-received as his previous song. I think it takes effort to be continuously silly, that’s why comedy is a trade.

If anyone’s wondering how a fox sounds like, here‘s a video. You can hear it at the 4:00 mark.

Itzkoff, Dave. “The Fox Says, ‘I Can Make You Famous’.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013.

Yokotani, Masahiro. “Captive Butterfly.” Free! Iwatobi Swim Club. Dir. Hiroko Utsumi. BS11. Tokyo, 25 July 2013. Television.