Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Professional Notes
Professional Notes Issue, by 1966 and received by the Philadelphia Museum of Art as a gift in 1984. Composed of plaster cut from the wall of the gallery and heaped on the plinth at the foot of the groove thereby created, this site-specific work is covered by a legal agreement with the artist whereby it can be destroyed and remade to the artists design in the future. Sol Le Witts site-specific decoration is to be seen in the adjacent gallery.
C~~tempora~ art instalation at the PhiIadeiphia Museum of Art featuring a site-specific work by Sol Le Witt, designed in 1981, decorating the barrel vault. Sol Le Witts composition-On a Blue Ceiling, Eight Geometric Figures: Circle, Trapezoid, Para~le~~g~a~, Rectangle, Square, Right Triangle, Cross (WaU Drawing No. 348)--was first executed in white chaik over latex paint, in accordance with the artists detailed instrucagreement includes tions: . in 1982. The purchase provtslon for the destruction of the work and its execution again at a later date, always in accordance with the artists instructions for its execution.
avoid the humiliation to the artists and the disruption of their own changing conditions suggest the need to move site-specific art? Many
European countries recognize a moral right of artists which protects their work from destruction. On the other hand, the law in the United States ordinarily allows the owner of an object to remove, relocate, cover or even destroy it, unless there are contract provisions to the contrary. In the cases described, the failure of the artist to have specific language in their contracts caused the court to rule against them. The court reasoned that, had the artists wanted the power to prevent the removal of their works, they should have stated this in the contract. The courts acknowledged that site-specific art has a right to be presented in a way that promotes its aesthetic value. However, it is up to the artist and the museum to see that this principle is embodied in a contract. Language in the contract can make it clear that removal of site-specific works is, in effect, destruction and is therefore prohibited. Specific terms may also set out those situations where removai will be allowed and what precautions must be taken.
300
Professional
Notes
In addition to carefully worded contracts, legislation based on concepts of artists moral rights may protect a site-specific work of art. In California, for example, no person except an artist who owns and possesses a work of fine art which the artist has created shall intentionally commit, or authorize the intentional commission of, physical defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of a work of fine art. New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have similar laws. New York has an additional provision that prevents display of a work of art in an altered, defaced or multilated, or modified form, if in doing so the reputation of the artist suffers. None of the statutes directly prohibits removal of site-specific art from public buildings and museums. However, the right to protect property from removal may be preserved by a written agreement between the museum and the artist. Such an agreement, if properly recorded, will bind subsequent owners. It is safe to conclude that the best course in dealing with site-specific art in a world of changing conditions and political pressures is for museums and artists to be certain that contractual provisions are clear. Before commissioning site-specific art, museums must give special attention to determining under what circumstances, if any, that art should be allowed to be removed. The agreed circumstances should be specific and should include special conditions to protect the art after it is moved. Courts will vary in their sympathy with the parties but will not fill in what they perceive as omissions in the necessary specificity of contracts. In addition, since private parties may not, by contract, agree to violate the law, museum legal counsel must also determine that the agreement does not conflict with statutes that protect art work. Note 1. The author acknowledges
Law, Lewis & Clark the contribution made to this note by Leonard Law School, Portland, Oregon, USA. D. DuBoff, Profesor of
DOUGLAS
A.JOHNSTON