Joe Thompson
Unlike Roberta Smith, who excoriated MASS MoCA in the “Arts & Leisure” section of yesterday’s NY Times, I still have some sympathy for the North Adams’ cutting-edge contemporary art institution and for Joe Thompson (above), its now embattled, longtime director, who, until this unfortunate episode, has had an admirable track record of working creatively and constructively with a wide range of artists. (I’ve previously discussed this contretemps in greater detail here.)
True, the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) of 1990 gives artists the right to disclaim authorship and “to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.”
But the agglomeration of stuff assembled for Christoph Büchel‘s aborted installation was paid for by MASS MoCA, which presumably now owns those disparate elements and can do with them as it wishes, so long as they are not presented as a work by the artist. The components never rose to the level of an artwork, because the artist never finished it and never claimed authorship. Under such circumstances, it seems arguable as to whether the protections of VARA apply.
That said, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it was clearly a gross miscalculation for MASS MoCA to flaunt, through prominent display, the detritus of its failed commission. Its retaliatory under-the-covers exhibition has, with some justification, been interpreted as a petty attempt to discredit the artist—not an attractive or helpful posture for an institution that wants be known for its collaborative spirit. MASS MoCA would have done better to have learned the sad lessons from this debacle, tightened up its contractual procedures for future commissions, and moved on.
Instead, we have the unseemly spectacle of artist and art institution going head-to-head this week in Springfield, MA, federal court. Even if MASS MoCA wins, it loses.
CultureGrrl
Lee Rosenbaum's cultural commentary
an ArtsJournal blog