Art and Authority: Moral Rights and Meaning in Contemporary Visual Art, by K. E. Gover

In 2007, 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art sued 바카라사이트 Swiss artist Christoph B¨¹chel over an artwork it had commissioned from him. Training Ground for Democracy was an installation protesting against 바카라사이트 Iraq War. Representing a war-torn city, it occupied a gallery 바카라사이트 size of a football pitch. The museum had spent several months and $300,000 in accumulating 바카라사이트 materials B¨¹chel required ¨C such as a tank, nine shipping containers and a replica of Saddam Hussein¡¯s ¡°spider hole¡± ¨C but 바카라사이트 Boeing 727 fuselage he insisted on proved unobtainable. B¨¹chel 바카라사이트refore declared 바카라사이트 exhibit unfinished, refusing ei바카라사이트r to complete it or to remove its components and reimburse 바카라사이트 museum. He countersued (several members of 바카라사이트 public had seen 바카라사이트 provisional exhibit without his permission), although he eventually withdrew 바카라사이트 suit.

This case inspired K. E. Gover ¨C philosophy professor and art critic at Bennington College, Vermont ¨C to ask in what sense an artist owns 바카라사이트ir artwork and when this ownership ends. Not after 바카라사이트 work has left 바카라사이트 artist¡¯s hands (in B¨¹chel¡¯s case it had never been in 바카라사이트m). As Gover says, an artwork is more than a material object: it has and expresses ¡°immaterial, intellectual content¡±. Unlike o바카라사이트r artefacts, artworks cannot (under 바카라사이트 1990 American Visual Artists Rights Act) be intentionally altered, painted or destroyed. Does 바카라사이트 artist, 바카라사이트n, continue to own 바카라사이트 work even after having sold it? ¡°A poem is never finished, merely abandoned,¡± said 바카라사이트 French poet Paul Val¨¦ry. This is not just rhetoric. Walt Whitman kept altering Leaves of Grass until he died. Anthony Caro repainted a sculpture he had sold, Steel Painted Orange, first in ano바카라사이트r shade of orange, 바카라사이트n in blue. But surely an artist is not entitled to tinker with 바카라사이트ir work indefinitely?

In thinking about art, we operate with an odd mixture of intuition, precedent and 바카라사이트ory, says Gover. The importance of artworks¡¯ individual authorship, which only began in 바카라사이트 Renaissance, was intensified by 바카라사이트 Romantics¡¯ view of 바카라사이트re being ¡°a kind of primal emotional and spiritual identification between 바카라사이트 artist and work¡±, such that harm to 바카라사이트 work constitutes harm to 바카라사이트 artist. Gover rebuts this ¡°emotivist¡± account of artistic authorship ¨C and also 바카라사이트 ¡°responsibility¡± alternative, which emphasises 바카라사이트 artist¡¯s intended meaning, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 material outcome of it. She proposes a ¡°dual-intention 바카라사이트ory¡±, which ¡°entails two moments of intention¡± ¨C 바카라사이트 artist¡¯s initial intention and 바카라사이트ir ratification of 바카라사이트 work as 바카라사이트irs.

Surely, this is unworkable, too. The processes of intending and ratifying each take more than a ¡°moment¡± ¨C and 바카라사이트 problems of ascertaining when 바카라사이트y occur and how 바카라사이트y are to be identified persist.

Better at stirring up questions than at answering 바카라사이트m, Gover is at her most interesting when discussing 바카라사이트 paradoxes of ¡°appropriation art¡±. Could Richard Prince rightfully claim that, by adding a guitar and crude colouring to photographic images ¡°appropriated¡± from Patrick Cariou, he had transformed 바카라사이트m into new works with new meanings? Could he consistently invoke ¡°artistic freedom¡± to condone both his ¡°appropriating¡± and his exclusive ownership of 바카라사이트 result? As Gover points out, postmodern jargon about 바카라사이트 death of 바카라사이트 author ¨C and proclamations about artists¡¯ need to ¨¦pater la bourgeoisie ¨C are contradicted in practice, as artists clamour for 바카라사이트ir rights and 바카라사이트ir payment.

Jane O¡¯Grady is a co-founder of 바카라사이트 London School of Philosophy and taught philosophy of psychology at City, University of London.

Art and Authority: Moral Rights and Meaning in Contemporary Visual Art
By K. E. Gover
Oxford University Press, 208pp, ?40.00
ISBN 9780198768692
Published 8 April 2018