Idiot Buys "Art," Then Sues
I think people who buy Louis Vuitton purses -- spending hundreds or thousands of dollars for a thing with somebody else's initials on it, and not even in leather -- are huge dupes.
Then, it got better: MOCA, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, held what I thought of as "the emperor's new purse exhibit" -- a show of Japanese artist Murakami's work, selling some of his ugly designs for Louis Vuitton.
Even dumber, the museum apparently got zero cut from the sales of the ugly crap, in a special LV/Murakami branded store in the museum. Here, from supertouchblog, is the spin the museum put on that genius idea:
It turns out the decision to grant the luxury retailer a license to kill was a curatorial one, made by the show's organizer, MOCA Chief Curator Paul Schimmel in an effort to highlight the inherently commercial aspect of Murakami's work, as expressed by his personal "Superflat" manifesto. In the eyes of Schimmel, it seems, the act of viewers buying Murakami's bags in the midst of a formal museum exhibition helps "break down the boundaries between low and high art" (a key concept of Murakami's philosophy) and allows the viewer to interact with the artist's work firsthand.
Now an L.A. man, Clint Arthur, who bought one of the prints is suing for fraud! Mike Boehm writes for the LA TImes:
They may not have realized it, but the folks who snapped up as much as $4-million worth of limited-edition prints by artist Takashi Murakami two years ago at the special Louis Vuitton boutique inside his exhibition at L.A.'s Museum of Contemporary Art apparently were getting nicely mounted handbags -- minus the snaps and straps.
This is all what the "art" world is about -- getting people to pay piles of money for piles of crap. It's part of the rethinking of art that makes up modern art. I sure wouldn't buy stuff like this -- besides, I find this particular stuff ugly as all get-out -- and I think the first time Ad Reinhardt painted a black canvas it was funny, and same with Andy Warhol's soup cans. But, enough already, all you monkey-see, monkey do "artists." Figure out your own thing or learn to actually...draw and paint!
More from the LAT piece:
"Louis Vuitton . . . knew that neither [Arthur] nor anyone else would pay $6,000" if it was clear they were getting factory leftovers from handbag production, says a legal memo that Arthur's attorneys filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, countering Louis Vuitton's attempt to have Judge A. Howard Matz dismiss the case as groundless.The point of installing a boutique inside the "Copyright Murakami" exhibition at MOCA's Geffen Contemporary building was to highlight the Japanese pop artist's trademark blurring of the lines between art and commerce, MOCA officials said at the time of the 2007-08 show. But Arthur contends that selling repurposed handbag material as 500 collectible art prints priced at $6,000 and $10,000 crossed the line from commerce to fraud because Louis Vuitton allegedly hid the fact that the prints were made from the same fabric sheets as the Murakami-designed bags and accessories selling nearby for almost $1,000.
When Arthur initially sued Louis Vuitton North America and MOCA last June, those class-action lawsuits alleged only that both had failed to provide information about the artworks required under California's Fine Prints Act.
He and his attorneys added the fraud allegation in August, after finding a 2007 interview in the journal ArtInfo in which MOCA's chief curator, Paul Schimmel, admitted that he was "surprised" that Murakami "took the materials that he had printed for various [Vuitton] products . . . and he had them stretched like paintings and made into a very large but numbered edition" of prints to be sold in the boutique. Schimmel had invited the artist and Louis Vuitton to set up the store inside the Geffen exhibition -- a rare, if not unprecedented, move for a major art museum.
Attorneys for the multibillion-dollar luxury goods company argue in legal papers that Arthur has no case because, as an experienced collector of fine art prints, he should have known from the context that he might be getting something that would blur the lines between art and manufacture. "Such ambiguity is . . . part and parcel of the Murakami aesthetic and thus, was part of the bargain," says one Louis Vuitton legal memorandum in the case.
Louis Vuitton also argues that because the boutique's sales brochure advertised the prints as "canvasses revisited by Takashi Murakami," and because their design was identical to handbags in the same boutique, Arthur should have known that he wasn't getting what he says he expected: works created specifically as limited-edition prints.
The way I see it, the joke is on anyone who actually pays for this ugly crap -- except, maybe, if you're paying to have it removed from your sight.
"those class-action lawsuits alleged only that both had failed to provide information about the artworks required under California's Fine Prints Act."
California has a "Fine Prints Act"? What's next, a "California Vulgar Display Act?"
Good Lord.
Dennis at April 23, 2009 9:51 AM
What's next, a "California Vulgar Display Act?"
That's Venice Beach on a weekend, with all the last people who should be wearing very little clothing wearing exactly that.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2009 9:53 AM
I dunno that there is much standing here... what you are paying for with a limited edition signed art work is for the name and the number, really. Sounds like the people got what they wanted, doesn't matter how it was made.
Unless of course they are embaressed that they didn't realize what was going on. Embaressed people can be quite nasty. I guess they forgot caveat emptor.
I like some of Murakami's stuff, but I would never spend money on it. It's just Japanese pop culture stuff to me, and sometimes I like that.
SwissArmyD at April 23, 2009 10:00 AM
Oh my god! That ball with the flowers on it? The faces on them look just like the stoner-piloted spaceship in 'Heavy Metal.'
NOSEDIVE!!!
Pirate Jo at April 23, 2009 10:09 AM
goooood nybourg!
SwissArmyD at April 23, 2009 10:17 AM
So long as there are people with more money than brains and taste put together, there will be a market for this crap. Just how to explain it to a malnourished child... .
Jay R at April 23, 2009 10:49 AM
Okay, here's an idea for breakthrough new art, based on Jay's comment above. Do a very expensive framing job of a check you've written for a lot of money for feeding very poor children. Along with the check will be a hand-written note from you about how you were going to create some bullshit piece and call it art, but you thought you'd do something truly moving instead.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2009 10:59 AM
As far as I can see, there are only three kinds of people who buy art:
- Collectors, who couldn't care less what it looks like, as long as it adds to their collection and will appreciate in value.
- People who buy something because it appeals to them - they like it.
- Pretentious snobs, who buy something only to impress other people.
This guy clearly belongs to the latter category, and (Schadenfreude) deserves what he got. "There's a sucker born every minute".
Sadly, the pretentious idiots support bad artists' inflated opinions of their work - causing more of it to be produced.
I remember seeing some sheet metal welded together at a construction site across the street from the (I think) Hartford Museum of Modern Art. The group I was with discussed it a long time - none of us could figure out if it was "real", or a joke slapped together by some construction guy with a welder. And that is just a really sad comment about a lot of modern art.
bradley13 at April 23, 2009 11:17 AM
Reminds me of a rant in a recent SF book about so - called "art" and "artists".
"You call this art? Ha! You know that a society is truly decadent when it falls for your brand of fakery. It violates the First Law of Art, Carmack's Law, which says, 'If I can do it, it's not art.' How many years of art school did you have to go to to learn to splash paint on a canvas like that? If someone studies music for four years, they walk away with an ability to play an instrument and can do something I could never do or imitate. But you walk away with an art degree, and the best you can do is this? Something any fool can imitate? This is the best ya got? 'If I can do it, it ain't art!'
... and in reply to "you just don't get it.."
"'If the artist has to explain what it means, then it's not art.' It's not art, it's a failure. Instead of universal symbolism or universal language, it's gibberish. Or a con job!"
Darius at April 23, 2009 11:20 AM
No matter how rich I am, I will never buy a Louis Vuitton anything. I hate logos. If I'm going to pay for a designer item (rare, very rare), I want to pay for good design, not to let people know that I can afford to carry/wear whatever it is. (OK, if I buy something "designer, it's usually marked down 80% at the Neiman Marcus outlet.) Usually, when I see an LV bag, I assume it's fake.
I sort of understand why this Arthur guy feels screwed, but don't really feel sorry for him at all.
Louis Vuitton... bleh.
ahw at April 23, 2009 11:36 AM
I saw the Murakami show at MOCA. Mostly it felt like a ride to the mall in the Partridge Family bus... I got the idea that maybe Murakami was a child of divorce from my generation who took solace from shouty parents by watching American pop culture a little too closely.
It was a lot of patterned wallpapers and garish stickers and other printed stuff. I'm not smart enough to be an art slut, but to complain that it was all commercial is kind of silly. You couldn't have walked through the museum without knowing that there was something abjectly transactional going on.
Amy's exactly right about the Louis Vuitton thing. How much sympathy are you ever going to have for people who spend money like that? The same consumerist impulse is being expressed, whether it's at the museum in Little Tokyo or the boutique in Beverly Hills. If some daughter-of-an-orthodontist brought her LV bag back to a Rodeo Drive showroom and said she'd decided it just wasn't worth it, no one would expect her to have her money returned.
I suppose those of us at the Murakami show could all have asked for our admittance money back... But truth be told, Murakami was no less moving than a lot of "sincere" shows we've seen in there.
Even though I'd seen photos of it before, this was easily the most powerful piece in the show... Nothing else was as striking, as thoughtfully handcrafted (so to speak) or as snicker-worthy.
Curator Paul Schimmel is the guy who gave us the best modern show I've ever seen, and it was in that same space. An achievement like that excuses a multitude of sins. I'll be back.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 23, 2009 11:56 AM
man, crid, Jesus was looking on and weeping for that [cue monty python]...
'course there are places that you will be thrown in jail for getting images like that in the mail... like Iowa.
manga collector on trial
:shrug:
SwissArmyD at April 23, 2009 12:13 PM
Wish I'd seen that show, Crid.
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2009 12:43 PM
Mostly lunch pail stuff.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 23, 2009 12:53 PM
Hmpf, looks like it was all designed by a hyperactive over cartooned 12 year old girl.
Robert at April 23, 2009 1:44 PM
Most "art" is crap, most true art falls into bradley3's 2nd category and has no real value to anyone.
Personally I always felt the only true art form was music.
Every time I hear Tchaikovsky's 'Waltz of the Flowers' from The Nutcracker I feel as though I could fly.
Mussorgsky's 'Night On Bald Mountain' sitrs a cacophony of chaotic emotions I can never accuratly describe afterwards.
And Martina McBrides's 'Concrete Angle', and Evercear's 'Wonderful Now' always move me to tears
How often does a peice of pottery, sculpture, or painting ever do that? Let alone a pianting of soup cans or random splatters on a canvas?
lujlp at April 23, 2009 2:14 PM
I buy art because I like it. Not for the resale value. I don't like or "get" modern art. I've seen better pieces put together by my five year old.
As for LV purses, I won't buy them. My husband bought me one once. I sold it on craigslist(W/ his permission.)and bought a Coach bag. It was on sale and they come w/ a lifetime warranty. It's a classic black leather bag and goes with just about everything. Simple, elegant, and not covered with garish logos. I've never understood why people pay for the privilege to advertise for a company.
Truth at April 23, 2009 2:27 PM
"Okay, here's an idea for breakthrough new art, based on Jay's comment above. Do a very expensive framing job of a check you've written for a lot of money for feeding very poor children. Along with the check will be a hand-written note from you about how you were going to create some bullshit piece and call it art, but you thought you'd do something truly moving instead"
Taking it one step further, frame the check, sign the art and put a limited edition number on it. Then let the purchaser decide if they'll mail the check in to feed the starving kids or if they'll keep it as art.
Elle at April 23, 2009 2:32 PM
Starving children?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 23, 2009 2:49 PM
I live in Japan, and I've never understood the fascination with LV bags...they're ugly! Just an unimaginative print of initials all over a bag. I've long thought that if it needs a label or logo for people to know it's 'designer' then it's a failure. Japanese department stores carry Pierre Cardin, Yves St. Laurent etc bath towels, slippers, robes, kitchen mats etc. Without the logo you'd never know.
crella at April 23, 2009 5:43 PM
I have NEVER understood the desire of some to spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on... a purse.
It's just a purse! A glorified sack. A pocket, with handles! I just do not see the appeal.
I stick my tongue out at lujip, however, 'cause I'm a painter. ;)
Melissa G at April 24, 2009 8:34 AM
Every time I hear Tchaikovsky's 'Waltz of the Flowers' from The Nutcracker I feel as though I could fly.
Mussorgsky's 'Night On Bald Mountain' sitrs a cacophony of chaotic emotions I can never accuratly describe afterwards.
And Martina McBrides's 'Concrete Angle'....
How is it that you can get "Mussorgsky" and "Tchaikovsky" and "cacophony" dead on, but "angel" and "gentically" throw you for a loop (or a looj)?
Conan the Grammarian at April 24, 2009 9:01 AM
How can anyone spend money on Martina McBride records while children are starving!?!??!?!
Think of the starving children!!!!!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 24, 2009 9:18 AM
Also, "Bald Mountain" sux!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 24, 2009 9:22 AM
Dyslexia, the more complicated a word the easier time I seem to have of it, smaller words, and words with reapeting vowels throw me when I am typing quickly.
Most of the words I mangle do have all of the letters
lujlp at April 24, 2009 9:33 AM
And MellisaG I never said ALL paintings were crap, just most.
I tried my hand at art, ceramics, but after I got labeled as "that crazy guy who smashes everything" when my peices didnt turn out the way I thought they should I dropped it.
I have an artists temperment but not the skill.
I went to a Chihuly glass exibt here at our local botanical gardens a month or two ago - some of it was nive, most of it was reapeditive and dull, the bowls were interesting but only beacuse of their color, and I wouldnt have paid more than $5 for one of them
lujlp at April 24, 2009 9:38 AM
And "Bald Mountain" rulze
It is a bit too long though
lujlp at April 24, 2009 9:40 AM
...throw me when I am typing quickly.
I was just giving you a hard time.
There was an experiment a few years (decades) back in which paragraphs were presented contaning words with letters missing or rearranged and people were asked to read the paragraphs. Most people had no problem reading the paragaphs. Their brains filled in the missing or scrambled letters.
I suspect when people are typing quickly to post something while it's still relevant to the discussion, the brain does something similar.
That would explain the ubiquity of mis-spellings, noun-verb disagreements, and verb-tense disagreements in the impromptu portions of the Internet.
It doesn't explain the errors in the supposedly edited portions. My mother-in-law was involved in an accident recently. The news report said the other driver "tried to break." Not sure what was meant by that.
Conan the Grammarian at April 24, 2009 9:47 AM
..."that crazy guy who smashes everything" when my peices didnt turn out the way I thought they should....
I do the same thing with photography. I've destroyed way too many negatives because I didn't like how they turned out. Usually the flaw is minor (or in my eye only) and could today be fixed with a basic photo editing software package.
I'm trying to learn to be less self-critical.
Conan the Grammarian at April 24, 2009 9:55 AM
I am ready to protect the right people have to call blotches of paint by the name of "Art" as long as I can laugh at their incredulity.
Toubrouk at April 24, 2009 6:31 PM
@lujip,
ROFLOL, I had a college classmate that had an equally rough time in ceramics/sculpture! I remember once he was evidently having a rough time getting a likeness on his self-portrait bust. The professor came over and wrinkled his nose at it.
The classmate quipped, "It's a statement!"
Without missing a beat, the professor replied, "What, that you hate art?"
Melissa G at April 28, 2009 4:20 PM
Leave a comment