Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Lots of sugar on coffee can cause death for people who are diabetic --and, as most of us know, most people with diabetes don't know they're diabetic. Not to mention that caffeine could cause heart attacks.
What an immature excuse ("it's too serious - no time to talk: hit the road, Jack. Please don't take this the wrong way") for behaving unprofessionally.
This all reeks of acting on impulse, being judgmental, and asserting their authority over a lack of control. Good luck to the business partner.
What an immature excuse ("it's too serious - no time to talk: hit the road, Jack. Please don't take this the wrong way") for behaving unprofessionally.
This all reeks of acting on impulse, being judgmental, and asserting their authority over a lack of control. Good luck to the business partner.
Harry S.
Well-known
A non-issue to me. The owner doesnt like your work, take it down. Be thankful for any and all time it was hanging.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
Wow. Ritual just lost a customer. I'm sure they don't mind. I'm too serious for that coffee shop anyway. They opened a kiosk in my neighborhood. I was thinking of going there but I guess I'll stick with Blue Bottle when I need a coffee run. When I'm in Valencia, I prefer FourBarrel anyway.
The owner's letter really really bugs me. That's enough reason for me to quit going to that place.
The owner's letter really really bugs me. That's enough reason for me to quit going to that place.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
What the owner of the coffee shop does not realize is that this exhibit does not deal with death at all, but with life.
I found the photos and statement to be a celebration of a life well-lived, of a spirit renewed, and the exploration of the theme that life moves forward- always.
I found the photos and statement to be a celebration of a life well-lived, of a spirit renewed, and the exploration of the theme that life moves forward- always.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Breach of contract is a non-issue?
Harry S.
Well-known
In this part of the world it isnt customary to resort legal fine-print and/or action at the drop of a dime.
Its a coffee shop. The place is doing you as an artist a favour by offering you and your work exposure to a wide audience. It would be a different story if the place was a large, famous institute like MoMA (as an example), where there is a specific contract, and there would be (credible) legal rammifications for breach thereof.
Maybe im just too easy-going? To me it is a non issue and where it me, Id handle it a lot more graciously than this photographer seems to be. Easy come, easy go.
Regards,
Harry
Its a coffee shop. The place is doing you as an artist a favour by offering you and your work exposure to a wide audience. It would be a different story if the place was a large, famous institute like MoMA (as an example), where there is a specific contract, and there would be (credible) legal rammifications for breach thereof.
Maybe im just too easy-going? To me it is a non issue and where it me, Id handle it a lot more graciously than this photographer seems to be. Easy come, easy go.
Regards,
Harry
Neare
Well-known
From what I read there seems to be a contract involved, meaning that the owner is in violation of that contract if the details we have been told are correct.
As there is $3100 involved, I would take it to the small claims court. The owner will be in her right to remove the works as long as the artist is compensated fairly for the breach of contract.
It's not a favour at all. Coffee shops host works for personal gain as it allows them to rotate the works of art they have on the walls, they also take commission for any sales. This is a serious issue.
As there is $3100 involved, I would take it to the small claims court. The owner will be in her right to remove the works as long as the artist is compensated fairly for the breach of contract.
It's not a favour at all. Coffee shops host works for personal gain as it allows them to rotate the works of art they have on the walls, they also take commission for any sales. This is a serious issue.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Ah, to you the issue is not everything that is documented about the incident, or that the incident happened at all, but that this has been published, aired out, and the photographer is overreacting (as opposed to being "easy-going") over having spent $3,000 to set up an exhibit for which there was a contract with the expectation of that contract being fulfilled, because this happens all the time and it's not affecting you directly or in any perceivable way, other than you finding it mildly ungracious, of course.
Hatch
Established
We only know some of the details.
What if the display had a serious impact on sales?
What if the display had a serious impact on sales?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Not mentioned in the coffee shop owner's letter as the cause. The cause was that it was "too serious".
Are people skim/power-reading?
I agree... take that cash and try the gallery contacts. It seems that the owner, outside of firing someone over this, was trying to be accommadating under the circumstances. And also, take Rob's advice...and see if a news story can be made.
steve kessel
steve kessel
Jamie123
Veteran
Your friend should just grow up. Firstly, it was not 'banned', the owner just didn't like it. I'm sure your friend can have t-shirts made of her work, walk into the coffee shop and no one will have a problem with it. Declaring it 'banned' is just being overly dramatic. The owner wanted to decorate her coffee shop and didn't deem the work decorative enough. A bit unfortunate but no big deal.
So she spent $3000 for work that was to be hanged in a coffee shop? Did she think she'd make this up with print sales? Yeah right. Who buys 'art' in a coffee shop anyways? If she had an airtight contract and the coffee shop breached it then fine, let the lawyers deal with it. Otherwise she should just deal with it and stop whining.
It really pisses me off when people use words like 'banned' even though that's obviously not the case. As if this had anything to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression. There are people in this world whose freedom of speech is actually being impeded. This Varese person is not one of them.
So she spent $3000 for work that was to be hanged in a coffee shop? Did she think she'd make this up with print sales? Yeah right. Who buys 'art' in a coffee shop anyways? If she had an airtight contract and the coffee shop breached it then fine, let the lawyers deal with it. Otherwise she should just deal with it and stop whining.
It really pisses me off when people use words like 'banned' even though that's obviously not the case. As if this had anything to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression. There are people in this world whose freedom of speech is actually being impeded. This Varese person is not one of them.
Jamie123
Veteran
By the way, I just reread the letter again. Breach of contract or not, the letter sounds very considerate. However, badmouthing someone and providing full name and contact details online for people to call her a 'bitch' and similar is a bad move.
emraphoto
Veteran
on with Frank's comment... the $3100 is not the gallery/coffee shops responsibility. it's not as though the $3100 is gone. i presume the friend has frames, glass, prints and such to show.
the $3100 is the cost of doing business. if you are going to show work you will be investing in materials at some point.
a bummer no less.
the $3100 is the cost of doing business. if you are going to show work you will be investing in materials at some point.
a bummer no less.
lorriman
Established
I've read the letter and looked at the pics.
If I was running a cafe as a business then I would be totally in agreement with the cafe owner. I wouldn't wish to jolly up the start of my day by going in to a coffee shop to look at bleak retro pictures. What the hell was the curator thinking?
I also don't think that the letter was a bad letter. Straightforward and to the point but not snide, as someone suggested.
Considering the behaviour of the photographer (assuming she is the source of this publicity) I wouldn't have anything to do with her even as a gallery owner.
It's not the cafe owner who was a fool but the photographer.
If I was running a cafe as a business then I would be totally in agreement with the cafe owner. I wouldn't wish to jolly up the start of my day by going in to a coffee shop to look at bleak retro pictures. What the hell was the curator thinking?
I also don't think that the letter was a bad letter. Straightforward and to the point but not snide, as someone suggested.
Considering the behaviour of the photographer (assuming she is the source of this publicity) I wouldn't have anything to do with her even as a gallery owner.
It's not the cafe owner who was a fool but the photographer.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The biggest gaff has been made by the curator IMO.
If I had a coffee shop these images certainly wouldn't be high on my list for adorning the walls and I'm not slagging the photographs in saying this ... just being a realist!
If I had a coffee shop these images certainly wouldn't be high on my list for adorning the walls and I'm not slagging the photographs in saying this ... just being a realist!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I guess contracts are only good for actors and sports personalities.
Paul T.
Veteran
Absolutely incorrect.
THere was an agreement - by two parties - to display the work. The owner has broken that contract - in fact, she confirms she is in the wrong by saying she's fired the curator. The curator was hired by her, she has responsibility for the curator's agreements, a responsibility that is not affected by her sacking the curator.
One can argue all of this on an aesthetic basis, but the fact remains the owner is being unprofessional .
wayneb
Established
I saw the work in question, it was one of the better things I've seen at Ritual.
Like probably 95% of the viewers I did not read the artist statement, so I had no idea of the context. These have a Todd Hido feel to them, but they aren't exactly black holes of the human soul. If anything it's the kind of work that people can glance at, see that it's introspective, and breeze by.
I wouldn't use the word banned, but I would be curious as to how devastating the impact this work had on sales for the owner to take such a drastic move. The owner obviously has a right to have this work or that work up, even to change her mind, and the letter seems to have the right intention. But the "wine and cheese" comment and the fluffy comments make her sound like a yokel. Or somebody that doesn't think her customers are very intelligent.
Like probably 95% of the viewers I did not read the artist statement, so I had no idea of the context. These have a Todd Hido feel to them, but they aren't exactly black holes of the human soul. If anything it's the kind of work that people can glance at, see that it's introspective, and breeze by.
I wouldn't use the word banned, but I would be curious as to how devastating the impact this work had on sales for the owner to take such a drastic move. The owner obviously has a right to have this work or that work up, even to change her mind, and the letter seems to have the right intention. But the "wine and cheese" comment and the fluffy comments make her sound like a yokel. Or somebody that doesn't think her customers are very intelligent.