"All we really have is our word"

New Mexico's KRQE reports that "a woman who sold two paintings to an Albuquerque art dealer-appraiser for $4,500 later auctioned for $661,000 won a cash settlement in court this week after alleging she had been defrauded." That's a slightly misleading way of putting it: it makes it sound as if the dealer-appraiser bought them at $4,500 and turned around and re-sold them for the $661,000, when, in fact, according to the story, he sold them for $35,000, and they then "passed hands two more times" and eventually sold at auction for the larger figure. The seller sued for fraud and negligence, and the jury "returned a split verdict .... [The dealer-appraiser] was cleared of fraud but found to be negligent and ordered to pay [the seller] nearly $15,000."

"The question is simply why there’s such anger"

An "honest question" from the Art Market Monitor for "the vocal opponents of deaccessioning." (The subject this time is Robin Pogrebin's recent NYT piece on "turnkey" museum exhibitions organized by corporations. Judith Dobrzynski, Ed Winkleman, and Derek Fincham all commented on the story earlier in the week.)

Liberal= Get Tough on Crime Instead of Get Tougher

More on the Peters Gallery Lawsuit

Josh Baer gets a statement from the Gerald Peters Gallery on the lawsuit mentioned here: "This lawsuit appears to be grounded in nothing more than buyers remorse, likely brought about by the economic downturn. Neither the facts nor the law support the claims made. The facts will demonstrate the gallery acted properly." Josh says "this seems like an easy case - either there is a record of an agreement allowing Waitt to rescind/take on approval works or not" (this overlooks the possibility, I think, of a contract having been formed through a course of dealing between the parties), but thinks what's really needed is "a strong arbitration process run by the Art Dealers Association that collectors (or dealers) could take complaints to."

Found (but maybe never lost)

Yesterday, Derek Fincham flagged a story that a Picasso painting "which was looted by an Iraqi soldier during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait has been recovered by Iraqi security forces." Today comes news that maybe it's not a Picasso after all: "The painting has a tag on the back with several misspellings that says it was sold by 'the louvre' to 'the museum of kuwait,' with the words Louvre and Kuwait in lower case. There are also several stamps bearing the name of the Louvre Museum in Paris. But an official with the Louvre Museum said it has never had a Picasso in its collection and does not sell its works because they are government property. ... The London-based Art Loss Registry said it has no record of any paintings missing from the Kuwait National Museum, and no record of this particular painting as missing at all."

No Nudes at the Met

A 26-year-old model was arrested yesterday after posing naked for a photo shoot in the arms and armor room of the Met. She was charged with two crimes: endangering the welfare of a minor and public lewdness. The photographer, Zach Hyman, has not been charged. Full story in the LA Times. The NY Post's coverage, with photos and video, is here.

Let the Wild Rumpus Begin!

The Iowa City Press-Citizen reports that "the University of Iowa has established an envisioning committee to consider options for the future of the UI Museum of Art, the university announced Tuesday."

Derek Fincham sums up the state of play: "So, we have a situation where it is not possible to return the works to the original, flood-prone museum; and paying for a new museum will be difficult."

And he has a thought: "One thing I think the committee should consider is selling a few of the works to another public institution, and using the funds raised to keep much of the art at UI."

How dare he! Perish the thought! Philistine! Repulsive! Stalinesque!

I have a headache already.