I agree entirely.  Would any lawyer like to comment on the implications of
this?

Supposing there is a legal action against a dealer disputing the
authenticity of a work of art by a living artist, and the artist is
called under a subpoena as a witness to give evidence under oath. Such
laws apparently provide that it is now  his or her "moral right" to
repudiate any work, even though it may be entirely genuine (and e.g. not
mutilated or changed in any way) if s/he simply no longer likes the work,
or now considers it unhelpful or damaging to his/her current reputation,
due to e.g. a change of style of working.  This was basically the case
with the example I mentioned a couple of days ago.  As I understand
it the sculptor Barabara Hepworth decided in the late 1920s that she would
not acknowledge the works of her early to mid 20s in what I suppose might
be termed the Rodin/Epstein/Dobson tradition prior to her development of
the distinctive Henry Moore/Barbara Hepworth style at the end of the 1920s
or in the early 1930s.

Further, it is sometimes suggested that in such a case continuing to say
(truthfully) that he/she is the artist responsible for a now repudiated
work might be regarded as libel!!

Do such "moral rights" over-ride the artist's  obligation to answer
truthfully if asked on oath the simple question "Are you the artist who
painted this picture/created this sculpture"? Surely not?


Patrick Boylan

=======================================================

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Jack C. Thompson wrote:

> Subject: Re: Artists disowning their work
>
> This is an interesting argument.  To deny authorship, to lie, becomes a
> Moral Right.
>
> An artist can, then, in good faith sell a creation knowing that it will
> self destruct in a reasonably short time (if we're talking centuries
> entropy will take care of things and this argument has no significant
> value).
>
> The owner, corporate or individual, then owns the artifact and any rights
> of reproduction, including, for instance, a series of images showing the
> degradation and dissolution of the artifact.  The owner may also contract
> for any level of conservation they are capable of paying for without fear
> that the artist will complain (in court).  The conservator may, arguably,
> claim copyright in their reconstruction of the artifact.  Morally.
>
> The Lemon Law, as it applies to car manufacturers and such, clearly does
> not apply to matters of art.  Probably.  But should it apply?
>
> If a car manufacturer can be held liable for producing and selling
> defective goods, why can't an artist be held liable for the same sort of
> crime.  By extension, why can't a museum be held to account for spending
> public dollars to purchase and/or house artifacts which are known to be
> defective in their materials.
>
> Interesting things, these Moral Rights.  Whose are they?
>
> Jack