From Artsy.net:
New York artist Alex Strada used to not give much thought to artist contracts. She’s hardly alone. Even though large swaths of the art world—from museum exhibitions to art fairs—depend on dense legal agreements, you’re not going to find a legal class on contracts as a required course at Columbia University’s visual arts program, from which Strada received an MFA in 2016.
But what if the invisible legal documents that make the art world go round were not only more conspicuous, but were also a mechanism through which to address the art world’s gender imbalance?
That’s the question Strada is posing through her recently unveiled artist contract, which, among other provisions, requires anyone who purchases one of her works to sell it 10 years later and use the accrued proceeds to buy a piece by an emerging female artist.
“Purchasing [my] work means buying into and supporting that fairly underrepresented demographic within the art market,” said Strada, herself an emerging female artist. The contract’s 10-year resale provision aims to project that support into the future.
. . . .
Strada was inspired by the Siegelaub agreement—a contract drawn up in 1971 by gallerist (and later textile artist) Seth Siegelaub and lawyer Robert Projansky that entitles artists to certain rights over their work after it is sold. For example, by signing the Siegelaub document, collectors agreed to pay artists 15% of the appreciated value of the purchased artwork if they resell it later (what’s called an artist’s resale royalty).
Siegelaub described his original contract, which has never been tested in court, as a “practical real-life, hands-on, easy-to-use, no-bullshit solution to a series of problems concerning artists’ control over their work.” In addition to helping address the economic imbalance between artist and collector, the contract also serves as something a piece of conceptual art itself. Attaching it to a sale makes an artistic statement as the legal document becomes inseparable from the artwork.
. . . .
“I was really excited by the idea that contracts could be a place to infuse my own political beliefs, feminist beliefs, and views of how the art market could potentially work,” Strada said.
Link to the rest at Artsy.net and here’s a link to the contract
PG says this works in the “Contract as Publicity Stunt” category. The chance of PG mentioning Ms. Strada in TPV was non-existent had she not undertaken her contractual innovation.
Is her contract enforceable? Only partially enforceable? Ditto for Mr. Siegelaub’s contract.
PG doesn’t know the answers to those questions. From a quick perusal of Ms. Strada’s contract, PG easily came up with some ways of circumventing the agreement that might work.
PG suspects the contracts would have a very short lifespan should the work ever fall under the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court. Under Chapter Two of the Uniform Commercial Code, the contracts would seem to work, but whether a security interest in the artwork arises under Chapter Nine is a bit dodgier.
Most wealthy art collectors are likely to have carefully-crafted estate plans to control the disposition of their assets after their deaths and minimize estate and inheritance taxes. PG is uncertain how these artist contracts might affect those plans and what might happen if, for example, the estate plans called for the donation of the artwork to an academic institution or non-profit organization after death. Might a discerning institution reject the gift on advice of counsel?
And what happens when the artist dies? Is the owner of the artwork dealing with Uncle Ned and Aunt Stella in Wichita? Or the artist’s child, Flaming Star, Chairman of the Communist Party USA?
PG is not familiar with the decision-making process of art collectors when considering the acquisition of a work. He suspects more potential purchasers are aware of Ms. Strada and Mr. Siegelaub because of their contracts, so that might be a plus for the artists.
However, unless completely infatuated with the artist and excited about maintaining a continuing and binding legal relationship with that artist, probably for the remainder of somebody’s life or longer, some collectors might look for somewhere else to spend their money or make an offer to acquire the work contingent upon the absence of any innovative contracts.
“requires anyone who purchases one of her works to sell it 10 years later”
And that’s where she lost me. Sorry, but there’s no way I’m going to buy something if it requires me to sell it after a set period of time. Once it’s mine, it’s mine. If I’m required to sell it, I’m not actually buying it, only renting/leasing. If I was thinking of buying someone’s work and they said that to me, I’d probably have to fight to find the politest way possible to tell them to go screw themselves.
“… the politest way possible to tell them to go screw themselves.”
‘No sale for you’, is polite enough, or just turning and walking away with your money still in your pocket. 😉
Heh. Yes. Tough to stick to just that sometimes, but it’s always good to practice.
> political beliefs, feminist beliefs,
If your beliefs are so rank you have to shove promote them by entailing your artwork, I wouldn’t touch the things with a thirty-foot pole.
I don’t think this qualifies as a sale. You’d certainly have a hard time applying the first sale doctrine to this and that would give you an interesting grounds for going to court to break the contract.
“That’s the question Strada is posing through her recently unveiled artist contract, which, among other provisions, requires anyone who purchases one of her works to sell it 10 years later and use the accrued proceeds to buy a piece by an emerging female artist.”
So you can only ‘rent’ her art – and then she’s got the right to tell you how you’re going to use any money you make off it after she forces you to sell it?
Sorry, but I decide how long I own something and what happens to it when I’m done with it.
As a ‘Publicity Stunt’ this simply tells me to avoid her and any of her works. Next watching any movie with Tom Cruse in it will mean your giving everything you own to the ‘religion’ he follows.
I’m sure the contracts are well defined enough to prevent someone from selling the work for a nominal fee to their wholly owned corporation and then using the proceeds to purchase their daughter’s school picture in crayola, but I haven’t actually read them to find out. Art is so subjective, you see….
Or another thought – selling it for a “proper” amount, and then purchasing a piece from a non-“feminist” female.
Believe it or not (she probably does not), there are quite a few female artists out there that are not linked into the hive mind.
I hope the artist has discussed this with her heirs.
As the daughter of a highly regarded ceramic sculptor (Sylvia Hyman, who has two sculptures in the Smithsonian’s collection), I’m familiar with the complex business of having to sort out an artist’s estate–including a gallery show under way at time of death, a bequest of art-related materials to a state museum with a collection of her work, individual pieces left to family members, etc).
Are her heirs/executors willing to pursue these contracts, keep track, enforce them legally, etc.? Sounds nightmarish to me.
you said it Jacquiline Diamond. I agree. I’ve seen several odd arrangements go by with colleagues that have turned into nightmares of administration after the well known person dies. Thinking in particular that the grandkids and grown kids are prob not the best people to leave the legacies, contracts, etc to.
WHat do you think is the best for one to do for one’s heirs?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t buy something that ties my descendants up in knots. Assuming they even know about the “contract” among the tons of papers involved in a large estate.
I would note that these contracts only apply in the real world if the “artwork” is publicly transferred. At auction, or to a museum. They are quite likely to just be ignored in any private sale between collectors.