brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I saw this article when it came out and randomly thought about it again today to see if anything had been resolved. Nope. I'd be pissed at the foundation (and myself for not handling this sooner).
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/nyregion/richard-avedon-unsigned-prints.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/nyregion/richard-avedon-unsigned-prints.html
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Which was what I thought at first till...
"But the Avedon Foundation has refused to authenticate them. It insists that Mr. Hofmann has not provided sufficient evidence that he made these prints under the terms he claims were agreed to with Avedon. What’s more, its lawyer and director have informed Mr. Hofmann in writing that should he ever attempt to reproduce any image for purposes of sale, they will demand a penalty from him of up to $150,000 per print. And should he sell them, they will sue the buyers, citing legal precedent in Guggenheim v. Lubell, a case that dealt with a work of art that had been stolen from the Solomon R.Guggenheim Museum and sold to a buyer unaware of the theft.
For now, then, their value cannot be determined: perhaps a lot, or a little, or next to nothing. No auction house would dare to offer them, for fear of a lawsuit. Museums, eager to stay in the good graces of the Avedon Foundation, which shares a block of West 53rd Street with the Museum of Modern Art, have been similarly wary.
So as things stand, these 126 rare and impeccable photographs have become as much a worry and a burden to their owner as they are a potential bonanza."
"But the Avedon Foundation has refused to authenticate them. It insists that Mr. Hofmann has not provided sufficient evidence that he made these prints under the terms he claims were agreed to with Avedon. What’s more, its lawyer and director have informed Mr. Hofmann in writing that should he ever attempt to reproduce any image for purposes of sale, they will demand a penalty from him of up to $150,000 per print. And should he sell them, they will sue the buyers, citing legal precedent in Guggenheim v. Lubell, a case that dealt with a work of art that had been stolen from the Solomon R.Guggenheim Museum and sold to a buyer unaware of the theft.
For now, then, their value cannot be determined: perhaps a lot, or a little, or next to nothing. No auction house would dare to offer them, for fear of a lawsuit. Museums, eager to stay in the good graces of the Avedon Foundation, which shares a block of West 53rd Street with the Museum of Modern Art, have been similarly wary.
So as things stand, these 126 rare and impeccable photographs have become as much a worry and a burden to their owner as they are a potential bonanza."
Too much greed... on both sides.
Yeah PM, I'm being to simplistic, but it sucks when potentially good work is kept in the dark due to this BS (though I do understand both sides).
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
One of my favorite art history stories about how messy the art world can be involves a Dutch artist who made Vemeer forgeries.
The artist's name sounded like "Van-Meager-Ran" who was hammered and abused by art critics as having "no talent." Out of bitterness V-M-R decided to display his talent by stripping off vintage canvas of the Flemish era and recreating "undiscovered" Vemeers.
V-M-R exploited Vemeer's legacy of only having a limited body of work. He also developed a process of aging paintings by baking the oil paintings in an oven, and knew how to simulate vintage pigments and media.
The forgeries that V-M-R produced were looked upon by the very same art critics that had spurned V-M-R as "Vemeer's greatest work." So instead of being a discouraged artist V-M-R became a very good art dealer, with a cornered market that he had invented, meanwhile he also had the last laugh. Ha-Ha.
Then WWII broke out, Goring and the Nazis bought several "Vemeer's" from V-M-R. In a wild reversal at the end of WWII V-M-R was jailed as a traitor because he was being accused of conspiring with the enemy, especially since he was selling what was considered "National Treasures."
When V-M-R exposed the truth about creating forgeries the critics again abused him and stated that he did not have the talent. V-M-R's defense was that he had undermined the enemy, and that he was a patriot, not a traitor. Anyways no one believed him, but while in jail he proved his innocence by creating yet another forged Vemeer. Eventually V-M-R was able to prove his innocence.
I own a Micheal Jordan Rookie Card, but it is stamped on the back "forgery." M.J. Rookie Cards sold for $30K back when I bought this card for $30.00 at a card show. It is actually a very-very good forgery. The story is that the dealer who sold it to me got it from a police auction. A printer made the forgeries and had gotten busted. It happen to be the last one that the dealer had.
A card dealer who knew I had a forgery called me to ask me to bring my forgery because he had a real one to compare. I could not see any difference, but the card dealer's keen eye saw that this @ (copyright) symbol lacked the microscopic (barely visible) stitching of the lines of a basketball.
I'm thinking that my "forgery" is likely worth at least a few hundred dollars, even as a conversation piece.
The vintage Bruce Davidson prints I own are not signed, but they have the Magnum stamp on the back and a hand written year. These prints were obtained from an estate. The owner was a doctor who also was a friend of Bruce Davidson which was indicated by photo's taken on a vacation, and addressed envelopes to the doctor.
When my friend began to show these prints around, he was asked in an accusing way, "How did you get these prints," and they were looked upon as being forgeries because vintage prints like mine were issued as emphemera and were not kept as art objects. Very few survived, and none are on the market. My little 6x9 vintage prints from 1967 are likely worth more than later large prints that are/were printed like money, mostly because of rarity.
In foresight I should of gotten at least photocopies that would prove authenticity. The Magnum stamp and the hand written date might not be enough.
Cal
Steve M.
Veteran
He should never have accepted unsigned prints from Avedon to begin with. No signee, no workee. So it's no one's fault but his own. There's nothing that would prevent him from trading the prints for something else. The trade does not have to be reported (as an unauthenticated unsigned print has no real value in terms of money). With no record of such a transaction, legally it never happened. He could also display the works, accept donations, and donate the donations to a charitable cause. At least they would be seen, and something good could come of them.
Years ago I could have bought a huge Rouault lithograph for a good price. It had only been signed in the plate (which w/ this artist was no big deal, as that's often how he did it). The problem was that it was one of the "refused" prints, meaning Rouault had not given his OK, so it was not numbered. Looking back on it I should have bought it as I loved the image, and getting a large print from this artist was not easy at any price. But I was stupidly concerned that if I tried to sell it later it might not be easy.
There's a lot you have to look out for in the art world. Unscrupulous dealers, fakes, reproductions. It's as bad as real estate! Most people involved in art understand the risks, and have either the experience to make their own decisions or let someone else that does decide whether or not something is authentic. Many years ago a truck was stopped in Italy that had 50,000 blank sheets of printing paper w/ only Dali's signature. He had been paid X amount of dollars per signature, then someone else would put an image on there. If you were only looking at the signature, it would be approved as an authentic work. Anyone familiar w/ Dali's style knew as soon as they saw the image that it was a fake, but the signature was what made it "real".
Chagall had his issues w/ authenticity too. I would never buy a print from either artist's "hand", because it probably wasn't. Miro may have had issues on this as well. I always thought, OK, they caught one truck w/ 50,000 sheets of blank paper and nothing but a Dali signature. How many trucks did they NOT catch?
Years ago I could have bought a huge Rouault lithograph for a good price. It had only been signed in the plate (which w/ this artist was no big deal, as that's often how he did it). The problem was that it was one of the "refused" prints, meaning Rouault had not given his OK, so it was not numbered. Looking back on it I should have bought it as I loved the image, and getting a large print from this artist was not easy at any price. But I was stupidly concerned that if I tried to sell it later it might not be easy.
There's a lot you have to look out for in the art world. Unscrupulous dealers, fakes, reproductions. It's as bad as real estate! Most people involved in art understand the risks, and have either the experience to make their own decisions or let someone else that does decide whether or not something is authentic. Many years ago a truck was stopped in Italy that had 50,000 blank sheets of printing paper w/ only Dali's signature. He had been paid X amount of dollars per signature, then someone else would put an image on there. If you were only looking at the signature, it would be approved as an authentic work. Anyone familiar w/ Dali's style knew as soon as they saw the image that it was a fake, but the signature was what made it "real".
Chagall had his issues w/ authenticity too. I would never buy a print from either artist's "hand", because it probably wasn't. Miro may have had issues on this as well. I always thought, OK, they caught one truck w/ 50,000 sheets of blank paper and nothing but a Dali signature. How many trucks did they NOT catch?
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I mean, he was Avedon's master printer and he has two other people who worked for Avedon at the time that weren't just floor sweepers. I think the story is legit but the foundation are being dickish about it. Either way, the back story with the prints is awesome so if the foundation lifted the "hold" on the prints then they would probably still fetch a pretty penny just for the story alone.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Great article, well written and reported. I feel bad for the guy. I totally understand why he never asked Avedon to sign. It's one of those irritating things you gotta do that you never get around to, and then it's too late...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
A signature is rather valuable.
I heard a story that Picasso would ask if he could pay his bill with a check at an expensive 4-star restaurant. Whenever this was acceptable the check was never cashed, and effectively Picasso was printing his own form of currency. To the owner of the check Picasso's signature was worth more than the restaurant bill.
The signature adds value for sure. Those prints are still worth something, and are likely more valuable as a complete collection. I wonder if fair litigation might lead to the present owner of these prints getting paid for the claimed compensation due, and the estate getting control of the prints with the stipulation of destruction. I know this involves losses, but this might be the way things go.
A complete set of unsigned prints strongly suggests to me the veracity of the oral agreement, but oral agreements are not legally binding. If I were the owner I would do some rather clever PR that causes an upheaval because this is not a battle for lawyers if you are the little guy. I assume the estate cannot prove that these prints were stolen.
An exhibition of unsigned prints is a start and possibly one's best interest. Even for spite and to create embarassment, I think this is a good idea. My point from being the underdog is to find clever ways and means to make the estate pay or take a loss like trying to prove that the prints were stolen, meanwhile make limbo work for you. There is a Chinese proverb: "Time is the best weapon."
Cal
I heard a story that Picasso would ask if he could pay his bill with a check at an expensive 4-star restaurant. Whenever this was acceptable the check was never cashed, and effectively Picasso was printing his own form of currency. To the owner of the check Picasso's signature was worth more than the restaurant bill.
The signature adds value for sure. Those prints are still worth something, and are likely more valuable as a complete collection. I wonder if fair litigation might lead to the present owner of these prints getting paid for the claimed compensation due, and the estate getting control of the prints with the stipulation of destruction. I know this involves losses, but this might be the way things go.
A complete set of unsigned prints strongly suggests to me the veracity of the oral agreement, but oral agreements are not legally binding. If I were the owner I would do some rather clever PR that causes an upheaval because this is not a battle for lawyers if you are the little guy. I assume the estate cannot prove that these prints were stolen.
An exhibition of unsigned prints is a start and possibly one's best interest. Even for spite and to create embarassment, I think this is a good idea. My point from being the underdog is to find clever ways and means to make the estate pay or take a loss like trying to prove that the prints were stolen, meanwhile make limbo work for you. There is a Chinese proverb: "Time is the best weapon."
Cal
Wuzwinder
Newbie
Great story --- Thanks, kind of reminds me about a man who said he bought a box of Ansel Adams negatives in a yard sale, wonder how that one turned out.
brbo
Well-known
Huh?! I was under the impression that oral agreements are infact legally binding in most cases and most legal systems. They are just harder to enforce (prove that an oral agreement exists).
But, of course, IANAL!
jvo
Established
as stated in the article...
as stated in the article...
what he said....
avedon was difficult when it came to working for him, particularly when it came to money... should hofman be penalized because of his reticent to push for the signature?
if you say the market will determine value, why should the avedon foundation restrict his ability to sell them? will these ~100 prints really depress the market for his work? will hundreds of other "unsigned" avedon's appear? rather unlikely.
as stated in the article...
what he said....
avedon was difficult when it came to working for him, particularly when it came to money... should hofman be penalized because of his reticent to push for the signature?
if you say the market will determine value, why should the avedon foundation restrict his ability to sell them? will these ~100 prints really depress the market for his work? will hundreds of other "unsigned" avedon's appear? rather unlikely.
jvo
Established
they were eventually discredited...
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Good, I wouldn't plan on selling one anyways. He can start by letting me select one to take home since it's not worth anything.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
First thing I learned in Business Law: Oral Contracts are not binding.
It is because it becomes a case of he said: she said where there is no proof. Anyways that is the way it is here in the U.S.
"Get it in writing" is a different matter. Now you have a legal contract.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Fred,
All your points are valid, but the suggestion of not being authentic also suggests ill appropriation.
I guess my position is ownership is 9/10's of the law.
Your earlier point about the estate's required position is also strongly remembered.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Fred,
I like to think of myself as a fine art printer.
A friend of mine thought that of me that way and wanted me to print for him. He had a book being released, and to promote the book there was going to be an exhibition, so basically I was printing for an exhibition in another country.
This show was important and we did double proofing to get it right and it involved a lot of collaboration. I learned a lot by not printing my own work, but I also taught my friend to consider framing before printing as not to have complications that could be costly mistakes.
Anyways it was about honor and honesty. I had all the digital files, and I could of easily made extra prints, but I didn't. Exploiting people struggling in the arts just is not cool, and it is akin to picking on the weak.
I made it a point to to contact my friend/artist because I still had his files on my computer, and I wanted to delete them ASAP. My friend told me to hold onto them just in case and delete them after a month which I did.
Anyways we are both aware of all the stealing and taking advantage that goes on. This is a good reminder that I have to be more concious about all those boxes of prints laying around that I made. Many prints are proofs that need to be marked so, and some should be destroyed as to not dilute my body of work.
The details matter a lot, especially the finishing details.
Cal
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Cal,
Where did you study law? Oral contracts are as binding as written in most jurisdictions; in fact, in all of which I am aware, though obviously I am not aware of all jurisdictions. The question of proof is another matter, but as long as you have witnesses to the agreement, verbal contracts are quite hard to weasel out of.
Cheers,
R. (LL.B.)
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Roger,
You place a stipulation: evidence. A verbal agreement that has no proof in a court of law is not binding. If you have proof like a voice recording, photo documentation, video tape that can be presented as evidence then it is a different story. A verbal agreement without evidence cannot be proven. It becomes a case of he said: she said.
The Business Law course I took was an elective in High School. I am no lawyer, but I live in New York where it is the culture to abuse people with the layers upon layers of laws. I also was mentored/trained by some business people on how to ruin and complicate peoples lives legally. Here in New York it is just business, it is not being mean.
Also know that my gal "Maggie" is an academic who as a social worker has a few careers collaborating with lawyers and the judicial system. We have many friends who are big time lawyers. I have mucho expert friends with law backgrounds.
The old adage remains true: "Get it in writing."
Cal
Clear Example: The NYT's article states that the Printer and Richard Avedone had a verbal agreement. Now look at the mess. The printer has no proof or evidence. Fred makes a very strong point is all the printer needed was a signed note as proof/evidence and this log jam could of been avoided. The old adage remains: "Get it in writing."
Last edited:
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Fred,
Agreed.
Clean povenance is just that. It is too late now for that.
What I take from this thread though is the importance of detail and evidence to prevent careless/costly mistakes.
Funny thing is that your mention of a tiny note would of changed everything, and even possibly the lack of a signature could have been a value added due to being an exception.
Notoriety sometimes commands steep premiums, especially when controversy arises.
Cal