A recent legal dispute between Swiss artist Christoph Buchel and the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art highlights classic communication problems between artist and patron.
The case in point has to do with an installation that Buchel agreed to create for a large space in the North Adams, Massachusetts art museum. The artist was hired by the museum via email to create an elaborate piece of installation art with a modest budget of $160,000.
After the artist Christoph Buchel went over-budget by double, there was an angry stand-off between museum and artist. Mr. Buchel did not want to finish his artwork and would not allow the museum to show his work unfinished.
While it is good that this piece of art will eventually be seen, what is not great about this story is that no legal contract existed between museum and artist. There was no budget or timeline that was signed and agreed to by both parties. There was an email stating intention with a rough budget and timeline, but no finer points of contingency were established.
If artists want to be taken seriously in the museum art world and want to have patrons or support for the creation of their artwork, every artist regardless of their stature or reputation should have a contract that spells out the rules clearly and professionally for both parties.
There is an artist stereotype of prima donna and self-taught business person that needs to end. The only way for this to happen is for artists to use legal means to protect their intention and their livelihood.
A recent legal ruling is allowing the Massachusetts museum to show the art installation, ready or not. While the artist Christoph Buchel may not like this ruling, it is the price he pays for not taking legal means to protect his artistic vision. Art is a business and as such artists and museums need to use good practices to establish clear communication.
The case in point has to do with an installation that Buchel agreed to create for a large space in the North Adams, Massachusetts art museum. The artist was hired by the museum via email to create an elaborate piece of installation art with a modest budget of $160,000.
After the artist Christoph Buchel went over-budget by double, there was an angry stand-off between museum and artist. Mr. Buchel did not want to finish his artwork and would not allow the museum to show his work unfinished.
While it is good that this piece of art will eventually be seen, what is not great about this story is that no legal contract existed between museum and artist. There was no budget or timeline that was signed and agreed to by both parties. There was an email stating intention with a rough budget and timeline, but no finer points of contingency were established.
If artists want to be taken seriously in the museum art world and want to have patrons or support for the creation of their artwork, every artist regardless of their stature or reputation should have a contract that spells out the rules clearly and professionally for both parties.
There is an artist stereotype of prima donna and self-taught business person that needs to end. The only way for this to happen is for artists to use legal means to protect their intention and their livelihood.
A recent legal ruling is allowing the Massachusetts museum to show the art installation, ready or not. While the artist Christoph Buchel may not like this ruling, it is the price he pays for not taking legal means to protect his artistic vision. Art is a business and as such artists and museums need to use good practices to establish clear communication.
