Counterfeit Degas -Sculptures- at the National Gallery of Australia

NOTE: All footnotes are enclosed with { } in this monograph.










Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Little dancer aged fourteen (La petitte danseusse de quatorze ans) modelled 1880-81; cast 1920-21
bronze, gause ans satin
Funds given Mrs. Mark C. Steinberg
Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/ DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

All so-called sculptures in bronze, attributed to Edgar Degas, are posthumous -counterfeits-.

That would make all fourteen so-called -sculptures- in bronze (see addendum below), in the National Gallery of Australia's "Degas, Master of French Art" exhibition that opened December 12, 2008, -counterfeit-.

Edgar Degas was some three or more years dead (d. 1917) when those 2nd to 3rd-generation-removed counterfeits were posthumously reproduced in bronze with counterfeit -Degas- signatures applied between 1920 to 1936 or later.

Fortunately, the dead don't sculpt, much less sign anything.

This factual perspective is confirmed in the National Gallery of Art’s published 1998 Degas at the Races catalogue. On page 180 in Daphne S. Barbour’s and Shelly G. Strum’s “The Horse in Wax and Bronze” essay, these authors wrote: “Degas never cast his sculpture in bronze, claiming that it was a “tremendous responsibility to leave anything behind in bronze -- the medium is for eternity.”{1}

Additionally, on the National Gallery of Art’s www.nga.gov/education/degas-11.htm website, it states: “By comparing the sculpture to stylistic changes in Degas' paintings and pastels, we are developing a chronology for the sculpture, which Degas did not date or sign.”

Yet, in the Canberra Times' published October 17, 2008 "Persevering curatormakes impression on Degas owners" article by arts editor Diane Streak, the arts editor wrote: "Director Ron Radford revealed that, just last week, the gallery had secured the loan of Degas's most renowned sculpture, La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans (Little Dancer Aged Fourteen) from the St Louis Art Museum."{2}

This so-called "Degas's most renowned sculpture" is in "bronze" with a "1920" date.

This is confirmed on St. Louis Art Museum's website{3}:

"Edgar Degas,
Little Dancer of Fourteen Years,
c.1880, cast c.1920,
French, 1834–1917,
bronze, gauze, and satin,
M / 28,
38 1/2 x 16 1/4 x 13 3/4 in. (97.8 x 41.3 x 34.9 cm),
Funds given by Mrs. Mark C. Steinberg,
Accession Number: 135:1956"

Yet, amazingly, in this same Canberra Times' published article, the arts editor quotes the National Gallery of Australia's director Ron Radford stating: "'This sculpture has never before been seen in the southern hemisphere and is regarded as a turning point in the development of modern sculpture.''{4}

Ironically, it has never before been seen by artist Edgar Degas himself because remember he was dead in 1920.

Now, for the devastating fact.

The St. Louis Art Museum is a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors{4}. As an AAMD member, they endorse the College Art Association's ethical guidelines on sculptural reproductions. In part, those ethical guidelines state: "any transfer into new material unless condone by the artist, is to be considered inauthentic or counterfeit and should not be acquired or exhibited as works of art."{5}

Since, Edgar Degas died in 1917, the dead can't condoned anything in 1920.

National Gallery of Australia, at one time under former director Brian Kennedy, was a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors.{6}

So, is the acceptance and exhibition of at least fourteen counterfeit sculptures in bronze, falsely attributed to Edgar Degas, just a lack of connoisseurship by NGA's director Ron Radford and senior curator Jane Kinsman?

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?
In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”

At the $20 price of admission, government grants, tax incentives, corporate sponsorships and other monetary considerations and the like that comes with the prestige a blockbuster exhibition brings to a museum, is that potentially too high a price for the public to pay to view what would normally be found in a museum gift shop?

LAW, ETHICS AND THE VISUAL ARTS

On page 816 in the 1998 Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts{7} by John Henry Merryman and Albert E. Elsen, the authors wrote: "The most serious harm that good counterfeits do is to confuse and misdirect the search for valid learning. The counterfeit object falsifies history and misdirects inquiry. - Museum and art historical resources are always limited. What gets acquired, displayed, conserved and studied is the result of a continuous process of triage, in which some objects can be favoured only at the expense of others. Counterfeit objects distort the process. - There remains the most obvious harm of all: counterfeit cultural objects are instruments of fraud."

CONCLUSION

The reputations and legacy of living and past artists, present and future museum art patrons and the art-buying public deserve the re-establishment of the obvious; that the living presence and participation of the artist to once again be required, as it always should have been, to create the piece of art attributable to the artist if indeed it is attributed to them, much less purported to have been signed by them.

To learn more, click on: DEGAS BRONZE FAKES, The ABCs of one of the largest...

or cut & paste this link: http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2007/05/all-degas-bronze-sculptures-are-fake.html

FOOTNOTES:
1) © 1998 National Gallery of Art ISBN 0-300-07517-0

2)http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/persevering-curatormakes-impression-on-degas-owners/1336344.aspx

3)http://stlouis.art.museum/emuseum/code/emuseum.asp?style=Browse&currentrecord=1&page=search&profile=objects&searchdesc=degas&quicksearch=degas&newvalues=1&newstyle=single&newcurrentrecord=3

4) http://www.aamd.org/about/members.php

5) www.collegeart.org/guidelines/sculpture.html

6) http://www.aamd.org/contact/
Administrative Office:
120 East 56th Street, Suite 520
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-754-8084
Fax: 212-754-8087

7) ISBN 90-411-0697-9 © Kluwer Law International 1998

ADDENDUM:
1 of 14 Edgar Degas (1834-1917)
Horse gallopin on right foot (Cheval au galop sur le pled droit),
modelled c. 1890; cast c. 1926, bronze, The David Draper Dayton Fund,
Minneapolis Institute of Art, Mineapolis
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.php?v=12&id=1265
Title:Galloping Horse
Artist:Edgar Degas
Date:c. 1890 modeled, c. 1926 cast
Medium:Cast bronze
Dimensions:12 x 18 1/2 x 8 3/8 in. (30.5 x 47.0 x 21.3 cm) [width at base is 8 1/4"]
Creation Place:Europe, France
Credit Line:The David Draper Dayton Fund
Accession Number:55.15
Location:Not on view

2 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Horse walking (Cheval marchant au pas releve) modelled c. 1881; cast 1919-30, bronze,
The Trustees of the Barbar Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham, Birmingham
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://mimsy.bham.ac.uk/detail.php?t=objects&type=ext&f=&s=&record=2&maker=degas&op-earliest_year=%3D&op-latest_year=%3D
Institution: The Barber Institute of Fine Arts
Artist / Maker: After Degas, Hilaire-Germain-Edgar (1834-1917)
Title / Object name: Horse trotting
Object type: Sculpture
Culture: French
Date made: C.1919
Materials: Bronze
Inscriptions: Inscribed on base: Degas. Foundry mark on base: CIRE/PERDUE/A.A.HEBRARD.
Measurements: 22.5 x 22.2 cm.
ID number: 50.3
Description: Cast no. 11/T out of 22 taken posthumously between 1919 and 1921 from the original wax model by Degas, now in a private collection. Conventionally entitled 'Horse walking', but the action is of a formal trot.

3 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Study for Little dancer aged fourteen (Etude pour La petitte dansuse de quatorze ands) modelled 1879-81; cast 1919-21, bronze, Purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

4 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Dancer, grande arabesque, third study (previosuly known as second study) (Danseuse, grande arabesqie. troisierre temps, autrefois apelee deusxleme etude) modelled c. 1892-96; cast 1920, bronze, H.O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H.O. Havermeyer, 1929,
The Metropolitan Museum of art, New York © The Metropolitan Museum of art
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

5 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Horse at a trough ( Cheval a l’abreuvoir) modelled 1860-68; cast 1920, bronze,
H.O. Havermeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H.O. Havermeyer, 1929,
The Metropolitan Museum of art, New York © The Metropolitan Museum of art
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dgsb/ho_29.100.433.htm
Horse at Trough, cast in 1920 from a wax sculpture of probably ca. 1866–68
Hilaire-Germain-Edgar Degas (French, 1834–1917)
Bronze, number 13/A; 6 1/2 x 8 7/8 x 5 6/16 in. (16.5 x 22.5 x 16.2 cm)
H. O. Havemeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, 1929 (29.100.433)
The original wax version of the Horse at Trough is probably one of the earliest surviving sculptures by Degas. It has long been recognized as the same horse that stands drinking on the bank of the spring in the painting Mlle Fiocre in the Ballet "La Source" that is now in the Brooklyn Museum in New York. The ballet, choreographed by Arthur Saint-Léon to music by Ludwig Minkus and Léo Delibes, opened at the Paris Opéra on November 12, 1866. Degas' painting was exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1868. The celebrated Eugénie Fiocre (1845–1908) was the subject of several drawings by Degas, as well as an enchanting portrait bust by Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux.

6 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Dancer, open arabesque on right leg, left arm aligned {Danseuse, arabesque ouverte sure la jambe droite breas gauche dans la ligne), modelled 1883-95; cast 1919-30, bronze, New Walk Museum and Art Gallery, Leicester
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

7 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Dancer, fourth position, standing on her left leg, third study {Danseuse, position de quatrieme devant sur la jambe, troisieme etude), modelled 1882-85; cast 1919-21, bronze, The Cone Collection, formed by Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Cone of Baltimore, Maryland, The Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore.
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

8 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Dancer putting on her stocking, first study, previously known as third study {Dansuse mettant son bas, premiere etude autrefois appelee troisieme etude), modelled 1896-1911; cast 1919-37 or later, bronze, Purchased 1958 Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamald, Auckland
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04
http://collection.aucklandartgallery.govt.nz/collection/results.do?view=detail&db=object&id=2723
Title Dancer putting on her stocking (Femme Mettant Son Bas)
Artist Edgar Degas
Production Date 1896-1911
Medium bronze
Signature/Marks Gire Perdu 29/H
Size (hxw) 476mm
Classification Sculpture
Department International Art
Period / Style Impressionist/European
Credit Line Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki, purchased 1956
Copyright Status No known copyright restrictions
Acquisition Method Purchase
Accession Date 1956
Accession No 1956/29

9 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Dancer moving forward, arms raised (Danseuse s’avancant les bras leves, premiere etude) modelled c. 1882098; cast 1919-31, bronze, Gift of Hoseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://hirshhorn.si.edu/visit/collection_object.asp?key=32&subkey=5986
Edgar Degas
Dancer Moving Forward, Arms Raised, (CA. 1882-1898)/(CAST CA. 1919-1931) Bronze
13 3/4 x 6 7/8 x 6in. (35 x 17.5 x 15.1cm)
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
Accession Number: 66.1291
curatorial info
Edgar Degas
* Bio: French, b. Paris, 1834 - 1917
Provenance
Galerie Hébrard, Paris
[unknown collection]
Peridot Gallery, New York, probably 1955 to 6 May 1958
Joseph H. Hirshhorn, New York, 6 May 1958-17 May 1966
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966

10 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Dancer at rest, hands on her hips, right leg forward, first study {Danseuse au repos, les mains sure les hanches, jambe droite en avant, premiere etude) modelled 1882-95; cast 1919-37 or later, bronze, Purchased 1955. Betrice Ethel Mallalieu Bequest, Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane.
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://www.aucklandartgallery.govt.nz/research/digitalresources/docs/cat63.pdf
“15. DANCER AT REST, HANDS BEHIND HER BACK, RIGHT LEG FORWARD, c. 1882-95, Bronze, 17 5/8” Edition 41/Q (Rewald XXII, Signed Degas, Queensland Art Gallery, Brisbane, This Bronze and No. 16, 17, 18 and 19 belong to the series of 74 figures executed in wax by Degas. Seventy-two of these waxes were cast in bronze by Degas’ founder, A.A. Hebrard, and first exhibted in Paris in 1921.”

11 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Little dancer aged fourteen (La petitte danseusse de quatorze ans) modelled 1880-81; cast 1920-21, bronze, gause ans satin, Funds given Mrs. Mark C. Steinberg,
Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://stlouis.art.museum/emuseum/code/emuseum.asp?style=Browse&currentrecord=1&page=search&profile=objects&searchdesc=degas&quicksearch=degas&newvalues=1&newstyle=single&newcurrentrecord=3
Edgar Degas
Little Dancer of Fourteen Years
c.1880, cast c.1920
French, 1834–1917
bronze, gauze, and satin
M / 28
38 1/2 x 16 1/4 x 13 3/4 in. (97.8 x 41.3 x 34.9 cm)
Funds given by Mrs. Mark C. Steinberg
Accession Number: 135:1956
Place made: Paris, France
The model for this sculpture was Marie van Goethen, a young ballet student at the Paris Opéra. When the original version of this sculpture (made of wax, and now at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC) was exhibited at the 1881 Impressionist exhibition, it was criticized for its unprecedented realism and was even considered ugly. In addition, many people found the mundane subject matter and unusual combination of materials-including real clothes-unsuitable for a work of art. It was the only sculpture exhibited by Degas in his lifetime.
Signed:
on base, on top surface, at back left, incised: Degas
on base, on top surface, at back left, stamped in metal: CIRE / PERDUE / A A HEBRARD [with "MLE" along the left margin of the stamp]
Provenance:
c.1920 -
A. A. Hébrard, Paris, France [1]
- 1957
M. Knoedler & Co., New York, NY, USA [2]
1957 -
Saint Louis Art Museum, purchased from M. Knoedler & Co. [3]

12 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
The tub (Le tub) modelled 1886-89; cast 1919-30, bronze, Musee d’Orsay, Paris © RMN/Michele Bellot/Jean Schormans
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/notice.html?no_cache=1&nnumid=006407&cHash=ab92bcf896
Edgar Degas, Adrien-Aurélien Hébrard Le tub entre 1921 et 1931 statuette en bronze H. 0.225 ; L. 0.438 ; P. 0.458 musée d'Orsay, Paris, France ©photo musée d'Orsay / rmn
Auteurs
Degas, Edgar
Paris (France) 1834 - Paris (France) 1917
Exécutant
fondeur : Hébrard, Adrien-Aurélien
? 1865 - ? 1937
Titres
Le tub
Dates
entre 1921 et 1931
Description
statuette en bronze
Désignation
statuette
Matériaux et techniques
bronze , fonte à la cire perdue , métal , alliage , fonte (technique) , fonderie
H. 0.225 ; L. 0.438 ; P. 0.458 m.
Par Bartholomé

13 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Woman rubbing her back with a sponge, torso (Femme se frottart le dos avec une eponge, torse) modelled 1888-92; cast 1919-21, bronze, Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966, Hirshhorn Museum of Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

http://hirshhorn.si.edu
Edgar Degas
Woman Rubbing Back With A Sponge (Torso), (CA. 1888-1892)/(CAST 1919-1921) Bronze
17 x 10 1/2 x 7 in. (43.1 x 26.5 x 17.7 cm)
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966
Accession Number: 66.1304
curatorial info
Edgar Degas
* Bio: French, b. Paris, 1834 - 1917
Provenance
Galerie Hébrard, Paris (agents for the artist's Estate)
Walther Halvorsen, Paris (and London), February 1921-c.1926
Justin K. Thannhauser, Munich and New York, c.1926-[21 Dec. 1940]
Mr. and Mrs. Otto L. Spaeth, New York, [21 December 1940]-1963
Marlborough-Gerson Gallery, New York, 1963-8 April 1964
Joseph H. Hirshhorn, New York, 8 April 1964-17 May 1966
Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966

14 of 14 Edgar DEGAS (1834-1917)
Woman washing her left leg, second study (Femme se lavant la jambe gauche, deuxieme etude) modelled c. 1883-86; cast 1920, bronze, ochre, reda dna light green patinas for the bather, dark green for the pot, H.O. Havermeyer Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H.O. Havermeyer, 1929, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art
http://www.nga.gov.au/Exhibition/DEGAS/Default.cfm?MNU=04

FINE ART REGISTRY, a Contradiction in Terms, Promises & Connoisseurship

UPDATED: February 8, 2009 with jpg copies of -How FAR works- and -FAR User Agreement- pages with the above side by side excerpt comparison. Footnotes: December 27, 2012.

NOTE: Footnotes are enclosed with [FN ].

On page 292 of The Random House College Dictionary, -contradiction- is defined as: "a statement that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous."[FN 1]

The Fine Art Registry’s website has three substantial contradictions in terms, promises and connoisseurship. This monograph will document those contradictions.

1. CONTRADICTION OF TERMS

On page 1481 of Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -term- is defined as a: “word or phrase that has a fixed meaning in some field.”[FN 2]

Fine Art Registry registers reproductions.

Many of those Fine Art Registry reproductions are non-disclosed as reproductions and are misleading promoted with this subtitle: “Artwork images are copyright of the artist, registrar or owner.”

U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW

Under U.S. Copyright Law 103, the “copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”[FN 3]

Additionally, under U.S. Copyright Law 106 A, “The Rights of Attribution - shall not apply to any reproduction.”[FN 4]

In other words, -artwork- is created by the artist and -reproductions- are copies of artwork done by someone other than the artist. They can never be the same, much less interchangeable.

 










FINE ART GICLEE PRINT

An example of a contradiction of terms on Fine Art Registry’s website (and the artist’s website) is the artist Jane Loveall’s In The Jungle, registered on Fine Art Registry’s website and listed as a “Fine Art Giclee Print.”

 








FAR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY
"Disclaimer. The FAR Certificate of Authenticity alone is not evidence of nor will the work associated with the FAR Certificate of Authenticity be recognized by Fine Art Registry as an official registered work unless the work bears the patented Fine Art Registry ID tag and a permanent record of the art exist in the Fine Art Registry database." (Excerpt from the Jane Loveall's COA for her "Fine Art Giclee print of an original watercolor" titled "In the Jungle." )

 
NON-DISCLOSED REPRODUCTION

Jane Loveall’s In The Jungle -giclee prints- are actually non-disclosed -reproductions-. This is backhandedly confirmed below the initial description “Fine Art Giclee Print” on Fine Art Registry’s website.[FN 5] In part, it states In the Jungle is a fine art giclee print of an original watercolor painting created by artist Jane Loveall at Studio B, her studio and gallery located in Downtown Fairfield, California. This giclee is printed on Breathing Colors fine art paper. The image size is 12”x 18” and the overall size of the print is 14”x 20 including a 1” white border.” Signed, titled and numbered by the artist in the white border area and on the back. Professional quality materials are used exclusively. This giclee was created using the state-of-the-art Better Light scanning system and printed by a professional Giclee printmaker.”

If you reproduce an original watercolor, you have, at best, reproductions.

The artist Jane Loveall, by admission, is located in the State of California.

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

Under California Civil Code Statutes 1738 to 1745, if someone sells a reproduction for $100 or more you must disclose it as a reproduction. Failure to do so may include but not limited to, refund, interest, treble damages, court cost, attorney fees and $1,000 fine per occurrence.[FN 6]

BETTER LIGHT INC. REPRODUCTIONS

As for the Better Light Inc. company, also located in the State of California, that reproduced Jane Loveall’s artwork, they post on their website the following question and answer: “Q: What do I need to use a scanning back for fine-art reproduction? A Better Light scanning back is among the finest ways to capture fine art originals for reproduction.”[FN 7]

BETTER LIGHT INC. OWN THEIR REPRODUCTIONS

Additionally, Better Light Inc. company clearly understands their rights under U.S. Copyright when they posted on their website the following: “Copyright 2004-2008 Better Light, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of text or photographs from this web site without the written permission of Better Light, Inc. is strictly prohibited.”[FN 8]

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, reproductions cannot be “attributed” to a living artist, much less a dead one.

Subsequently, any “derivatives” ie., reproductions of an artist's original artwork and those reproduction rights, under U.S. Copyright Law, would be owned by the printer who reproduced it.

Therefore, unless the artist had those “reproduction rights” reassigned in writing back to them from the "printer" who reproduced them, those same individuals would have the right to reproduced more without the permission or knowledge of the artist.

There potentially goes a so-called -limited edition-.

Of course, if the artist understood their rights under U.S. Copyright Law and had all “reproductions rights” reassigned back to them from these individuals who reproduced their original artwork, then that would be a written admission that they knew from the very beginning that they were “reproductions” and not “works of visual art.”

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS

This perspective is confirmed by the "Printing Trade Customs"[FN 9] published by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. that documents their understanding that if a printer reproduces the work they own the tools ie. plates, negatives and the like used to reproduce it.

So, with reproductions and non-disclosed reproductions being registered on Fine Art Registry’s website, are we just to believe or suspend disbelief when Fine Art Registry states that anyone can make “a permanent record of a work of art you have created or obtained or of a whole collection of art work,” “Collectors {can} buy with the security of knowing that the provenance of the pieces is established and authentic,” “Insurance claims can be made and dealt with in the certainty that the piece of art actually existed and was owned by the person or entity making the claim” and that. “50, 100 or 500 years from now, the provenance of a work of art can be verified on the FAR web site and its history traced?”[FN 10]

Hence, Fine Art Registry’s contradiction of terms.


 
http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php 


2. CONTRADICTION OF PROMISES

On pages 1228 of the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, -promise- is defined as the: “manifestation of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified manner, conveyed in such a way that another is justified in understanding that a commitment has been made; a person’s assurance that the person will or will not do something.”[FN 11]

Fine Art Registry makes promises, with or without intent, it cannot keep and in the small print it admits it.


 

http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

 
On Fine Art Registry “How FAR Works” webpage, it states: “You, an artist, collector, gallery or museum decide you want to make a permanent record of a work of art you have created or obtained or of a whole collection of art work.”[FN 12]

 Yet, in the small print of their -User Agreement-, Fine Art Registry discloses: “The terms "Art" or "Art Works" used throughout this User Agreement shall be defined as, and include any and all items or objects that may be registered."[FN 13]

Additionally, on Fine Art Registry “How FAR Works” web page, it states: ”You apply the tags, photograph the pieces and register each one on the FAR web site so there is a permanent record in our database with all relevant information.”[FN 14]

Yet, once again, in the small print of their -User Agreement-, Fine Art Registry discloses: “Fine Art Registry™ is a symbol of integrity. As Fine Art Registry makes no guarantee of the accuracy or authenticity of any images or information provided by Registered User/Members.”[FN 15]

Furthermore, on Fine Art Registry “How FAR Works” web page, it states: “Collectors looking for art to buy for their collections can browse the FAR galleries or find work by specific artists and buy with the security of knowing that the provenance of the pieces is established and authentic.”[FN 16]

In contrast to assurances to provenance and authenticity, in the small print of their -User Agreement-, Fine Art Registry admits: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”[FN 17]

Hence, what Fine Art Registry actually offers and gives is, at best, a contradiction in promises.

3. CONTRADICTION OF CONNOISSEURSHIP

In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”[FN 18]

Many of the Fine Art Registry principals and authors, with a few exceptions, have exposed their lack of connoisseurship in their published articles posted on Fine Art Registry’s website.

Here are just five examples:

LIHUA ZHAO

In Fine Art Registry published May 22, 2007 “Replicas and Fakes in the Chinese Art Market” article by Lihua Zhao, the author writes: “In China is it quite common for a painter to reproduce the original artist's work, with the sanction of the original artist who authorizes a limited number of signed reproductions. These are verified by the original artist or a representative as to accuracy and technical accuracy and quality before they can be sold and a certificate is issued which accompanies the painting when it is sold. The reproducing artist signs a contract and sells these works under license. A percentage of the sale usually goes to the original artist. So the Chinese have found a way to satisfy their desire for art in a manner which they can afford.”[FN 19]

REPRODUCTIONS ARE NOT ART

Lihua Zhao writes of some Chinese artists' who authorize chromist (someone who copies artwork) to reproduce their work for a cut of the subsequent sales. The result are, at best, chromist-made reproductions that may satisfy some of the Chinese’ desire for reproductions they can afford but not -art-. as misleadingly stated.

Additionally, Lihua Zahao writes: “More and more Chinese people have begun to accept reproduced or counterfeit works of art which have artistic merit and these find their way into private collections or home decoration. Investment advisors suggest that price and collection value mainly depend on the quantity and the quality of the reproductions. Really high quality reproductions, in fact, promote knowledge and understanding of art and tend to have high investment value.”[FN 20]

NO ARTISTIC MERIT

Whatever the Chinese people are beginning to accept that does not change the fact that reproductions and counterfeit work have -no- artistic merit.

Lihua Zahao commingles art and reproduction as if they are interchangeable, much less the same. Therefore, at best, Lihua Zahao exposes her lack of connoisseurship.

MICHAEL TRANT

In the Fine Art Registry’s published “Demystifying the Print” by Michael Trant, the author wrote: “Reproductions created entirely by the artist’s hand are referred to as "original prints" - The lithograph is a high-resolution print that can be inexpensively produced in large quantities.”[FN 21]

Reproduction, by definition, is a “copy - of an original work of art - done by someone other than the creator of the original.”[FN 22]

A lithograph is an original work of visual art “wholly executed by hand by the artist” and “excludes any mechanical and photomechanical processes”[FN 23] and would -never- be diminished as being a “high resolution print,” much less “produced in large quantities.”

Not only does this article impeach the connoisseurship of this author but Fine Art Registry whose responsibility it was for vetting it, much less publishing it.

JOHN DAAB

In the Fine Art Registry’s published April 18, 2008 “Fine Art Connoisseurship and its Reckoning Processes, Problems, and Appropriate Role for the Fine Art Connoisseur in the Authentication Process” by John Daab, the author writes: "Fine Art Registry™ is a source for establishing the provenance for works of art.”[FN 24]

Remember, as noted earlier, Fine Art Registry admits in the small print of their -User Agreement- that: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”[FN 25]

It would seem, at best, John Daab failed to read the fine print of Fine Art Registry’s -User Agreement-.

Additionally, John Daab writes: “The accuracy of the connoisseurship examination depends on the knowledge and skill of the connoisseur and, to a considerable degree, his or her independence and lack of vested interest in the outcome of the authentication.”[FN 26]

To that point, I say -exactly-.

DAVID PHILLIPS

In Fine Art Registry’s published August 22, 2008 “Artletics, a New Partner for Fine Art Registry” article by David Phillips, the author writes: “As a result, Artletics is our latest partner, which means they are set up to tag and register all of their Limited Edition Exclusive prints and any other products they care to use the system to protect. This means that sports fans that buy Limited Edition Exclusive prints have a unique product in yet another way. It will be uniquely tagged and will be registered in the Fine Art Registry database along with information about the print and the edition. This will protect the edition from being forged or faked in any way and owners will be secure that they have the real thing.”[FN 27]

The “Limited Edition Exclusive by Bruce Stark” titled “New York’s Babe Ruth,” being offered for sale as a "Black and White, Mixed Media, Giclee" at $395 each on Artletic’s website[FN 28], are actually -non-disclosed- reproduction/posters.

Remember, Fine Art Registry’s User Agreement states: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”[FN 29]

To learn more about this particular contentious issue of authenticity, link to: THE REAL THING?, Artletic & Fine Art Registry’s AV...

THERESA FRANKS

In the Fine Art Registry’s published January 14, 2008 “Truth in the Fine Art Industry Limited Edition Reproductions” article by Theresa Franks, the author and FAR founder writes: “The Fine Art Registry system of tagging and registering each piece of fine art or other collectible individually with a unique, tamper-evident tag and then registering that piece with a full description and photos lends itself perfectly to putting a halt to the abuses and deceit in the multiples market. If each artist makes a point of ensuring that every single limited edition print that he/she has made or authorized carries the Fine Art Registry tag and is registered in the Fine Art Registry database, both artist and buyers/collectors are protected. This alone adds tremendous legitimacy and value to a limited edition reproduction.”[FN 30]

Yet, once again as noted earlier, Fine Art Registry founder’s own website's -User Agreement- contradicts her when it states: “Fine Art Registry has no control over the authenticity, provenance, safety, legal title, legality of the items advertised, the truth and/or accuracy of the registered works of art or collectibles listed for sale, or sale transactions entered into between prospective buyers and sellers. We cannot ensure nor do we guarantee that the art and/or valuables Registered with and Listed for Sale on Fine Art Registry are authentic in any way, or that the items and/or works are by the hand of a particular artist, maker, or manufacturer.”[FN 31]

Hence, the Fine Art Register's founder and some of its' authors have serious contradictions in connoisseurship.

CONCLUSION

Fine Art Registry’s contradictions in terms, promises and connoisseurship, documented in this monograph, seriously undermines any confidence that they can deliver on their -FAR® Tag Technology and Permanent Online Registry for Art and Collectibles-, much less on their -Fine Art Registry™ Investigative Reports-.Also link to:

• Gamut Control, Whose Reproductions Are They?

FOOTNOTES: 
1. Copyright 1980 by Random House, Inc. ISBN 0-394-43500-1

2. Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

3. § 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

4. § 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity37 (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art — (1) shall have the right — (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction.

5. http://www.fineartregistry.com/art_details.php?aid=68844

6. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/1/1/s1738

7. http://www.betterlight.com/faq_sales.html?releaseID=18

8. http://www.betterlight.com/history.html

9. PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS Printing Industries of America, Inc. 6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.

10 http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

11. Copyright © 1999, By West Group, ISBN 0-314-22864-0

12.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

13.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

14.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

15.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

16.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/far_art/how_far_works.php

17.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

18.  rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/teach/eah/ImageServe

19.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/zhao_lihua/art-fakes-chinese.php

20. Ibid

21.  http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/trant_michael/art-prints.php

22.  p. 350, The Harper Collins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques by Ralph Mayer, ISBN 0-06-461012-8 (pbk.)

23.http://cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/icp061.ctt/icp061.pdf.

24.http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-education/fine-art-connoisseur.php

25. http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

26. http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-education/fine-art-connoisseur.php

27. http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-appreciation/artletics-sports-collecting.php

28.  http://www.artletics.com/view.php?proid=874

29. http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

30. http://www.fineartregistry.com [fineartregistry.com/articles/franks_teri/default.php ]

31. http://www.fineartregistry.com/about_FAR/user_agreement.php

Gamut Control, Whose Reproductions Are They?

UPDATED: December 4, 2008 Originally posted April 7, 2008

NOTE: (This monograph was updated on December 4, 2008 with the addition of copies of November 9-10, 2007 email correspondence to and from Fine Art Registry's David Phillips and copies of April 7, 2008 email correspondence to and from Fine Art Registry's Theresa Franks. The original April 7, 2008 monograph contained a brief reference to Fine Art Registry's association with Gamut Control but was removed, as noted below, upon request from Theresa Franks when this scholar was informed FAR was no longer associated with Gamut Control.)

Also link to: THE REAL THING?, Artletic & Fine Art Registry’s AV...

and link to: Fine Art Registry, a Contradiction in Terms, Promi...

 

“It is further understood that any work performed by Gamut or any of Gamut’s affiliations will be the sole property and ownership of Gamut including any and all copyrights.” 

Gamut Control Price List
Gamut Control Price List MSRP.jpg (JPEG Image, 825x1064 pixels)
Text (detail) Gamut Control Price List

WHO IS GAMUT CONTROL? 

That is answered by Gamut Control on their www.gamutcontrol.com/printing.htm website under the subtitle: "Printing." In part, it states: "Printing the highest quality artwork is what Gamut Control is all about. - Now Gamut Control is pleased to introduce the next generation of art reproduction technology."

Artwork is created by an artist. Reproductions are copies not created by artists. It would seem, Gamut Control would have everyone believe they are the same thing.

THE COACHMAN

Unfortunately, Gamut Control reminds me of The Coachman in the old 1940 Disney classic movie Pinocchio. As you may know, the movie is the story of a wooden puppet named Pinocchio who desperately wants to become a real little boy. In his journey to become human, Pinocchio comes across The Coachman’s hench men Honest John and Gideon who lure him to Pleasure Island to eat whatever he wishes and create havoc all day when the true and sinster purpose is to turn wayward boys into donkeys for sale. (Source: Wikipedia)

Fortunately, for all us, including myself, who have seen the movie as a child, it has a happy ending where Pinocchio escapes to eventually become a real little boy.

Rhetorically speaking, would those artists who do business with Gamut Control, much less the public, be so lucky?

Let’s see.

ARTWORK SO PRECISE THE ARTIST'S CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE
In the Gamut Control’s www.gamutcontrol.com/gallery.htm, it states; "What makes Gamut Control's 'next generation' reproduction technology so special? - This is new technology, cutting edge. Remember when Lithography was new? Remember what those limited editions sold for and what they are worth now? We have the next, new, appreciating in value, artwork. Gamut Control is the first company to offer: * Next Generation Technology * Artwork so precise the artists can't tell the difference * Numbered in limited runs (300) * Signed Certificates of Authenticity *Online registration and tracking to insure Authenticity."

Artwork is created by an artist and reproductions are copies not created by artists. Again, Gamut Control would have everyone believe that "reproduction" and "artwork" are interchangeable.

ASSISTS ARTIST IN REGISTERING THEIR ART

In the Gamut Control's published March 15, 2008 Volume: 1, Issue 1 Gamut Control Corner newsletter, it states: "After learning the requirements and details of the Laws of Multiples in various states, the true legalities of copyright protection, the prevalence of fakery and forgery and the need for complete protection, Gamut Control has chosen to change our methodologies with regard to securing protection. We will now offer, as a first line of defense, registration with the US Library of Congress through the US Copyright Office. - This service is free to all of our artists from Gamut Control with the exception of the registration fee with the Library of Congress which is $45 per painting or $45 for a collection of paintings which are marketed by Gamut Control as a special edition."

Artwork is created by an artist and reproductions are copies not created by artists. So, an artist may register their artwork with the U. S. Copyright Office but only Gamut Control can register their reproductions of that artwork with the U. S. Copyright Office.

This perspective is confirmed by U. S. Copyright Law 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works which, in part, states: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”

In layperson’s terms, the artist may own the copyright to their painting that Gamut Control may generously assist them in registering with the U.S. Copyright Office but the Gamut Control would own the copyright to the derivatives ie. giclee reproductions they reproduce from the artist’s registered painting.

So, if you are going to lock the door, make sure the fox is not already in the hen house.

Just in case, your not convinced these derivatives ie. reproductions are owned by Gamut Control, let's once again quote from Gamut Control's own jpeg file titled "MSRP Price Lists" posted on their http://www.gamutcontrol.com/downloads.htm website.

ANY WORK PERFORMED BY GAMUT - OWNS - ANY AND ALL COPYRIGHTS

In small type at the bottom of the page in their "MSRP Price Lists," Gamut Control states: “It is further understood that any work performed by Gamut or any of Gamut’s affiliations will be the sole property and ownership of Gamut including any and all copyrights.”

So, if Gamut Control constantly commingles the terms reproduction and artwork throughout their published literature as if they are the same thing and interchangeable, couldn't that possibly confuse the artist, much less the public?

Then if you add Gamut Control's generous offer to help register the artist's copyright for their artwork, might the artist think that registration covers not only their artwork but Gamut Control's so-called "artwork" ie. reproductions that they reproduced?

Then some day Gamut Control may decide to reproduce more from digital files of the artist's artwork or may go bankrupt and those who acquire the company and the digital files of the artist's artwork may decide to reproduce more or one of the employees of Gamut Control or future owners' employees may decide to reproduce more without telling the company violating the company's copyright but one thing is for sure it won't be violating the artist's copyright because it wasn't ever the artist's reproductions to begin with.

There goes the so-called "Limited Edition," along with the artist's reputation, much less their credibility.

You see, under U.S. Copyright Law, the printer, in this case Gamut Control, who reproduced the work would only be contractually obligated to give the artist what they paid for. The artist paid for 300 reproduction, they get 300 reproductions. All the overruns, plates, negatives, digital files and the like the printer produced would be theirs and if they chose to they could make more reproductions without the permission, much less the knowledge of the artist.

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS

This perspective is confirmed by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. in their published Printing Trade Customs, which, in part, states: “6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.”

GICLEES ARE SUPERIOR TO TRADITIONAL LITHOGRAPHY

Then to add insult to injury, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, states: “giclee (zhee-clay), is an individual produced, reproduction... Giclees are superior to traditional lithography.”

As an artist who creates lithographs, I speak from experience that lithographs are original works of visual art created by an artist that would -never- be trivialized as reproductions.

U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS

This perspective is confirmed in U.S. Customs’ “April 2004 Works of Art, Collector's Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property - An Informed Compliance Publication. ” In part, it states: "The expression "original engravings, prints and lithographs" means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?

On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques, the term -reproduction- is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”

U.S COPYRIGHT LAW - RIGHTS OF ATTRIBUTION

Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A. Rights of Attribution - “shall not apply to any reproduction.”

So, to commingle giclee reproductions done by someone other than the artist with original works of visual art such as lithographs created by an artist as if they were the same exposes, at best, an extreme lack of connoisseurship by Gamut Control.

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?

In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, -connoisseurship- is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.”

Additionally, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, asks the question: “How long will these {giclees} last?” with the following answer: “We guarantee they will last 110 years, under normal conditions.”

Aside what would be considered “normal conditions”, and aside what documentation does Gamut Control offer to confirm their “guarantee,” what does “last 110 years” really mean?

GICLEE - THE BEST OR WORST REPRODUCTION PROCESS

Unfortunately, a real concern for “giclee” reproductions is the lightfastness issue. In otherwords, is the so-called -GICLEE- technology the best or the worst reproduction process in the industry?

INKS OR DYES

The giclee reproduction technology up till recently only used water-based “dyes” (animal, vegetable or aniline). How can you determine if the giclee reproduction has been reproduced using water-based dyes?

The answer is do the printer, gallery or artist recommend not getting the image wet? Dyes can run if they get wet. (Inks, when dry, do not.) Or do they recommend a protective coating which is another red flag to protect the water-based dyes from running, much less assist in its’ lightfastness.

On the other hand, recent technological advances in grinding ink (mineral) down to 4 micons and coating them with clear polyuthyrene allows them to use the same printers to reproduce without clogging the jets which would happen immediately with normal ink. So, by using clear polyuthyrene coated inks, the image once dry will not run if the image should somehow get wet.

LIGHTFASTNESS

The other benefit with the use of ink instead of dyes is the lightfastness.

In October 1996, Art Calendar devoted almost an entire published issue to giclee reproduction. The lightfastness issue of dyes used for giclee reproduction were documented from the testing from Group Leader, R&D Paste Inks, Handschy Industries Charles Lakie. In reference to digital dye-based reproductions ie. “giclee,” Charles Lakie wrote: “The difference in fade resistance can be compared to a car (Mel’s Litho) vs. a cereal box (digital editions). The car’s color can withstand any earthly environment and the color will still be there---the color is formulated to last longer than the car itself. The cereal box is formulated to last as long as it takes to put the box of cereal on the store shelves, sell it, put it into a cabinet, take it out only to eat it, and eventually throw it away. There is a minimal exposure to any type of light, so cheaper pigments are used. However, if by chance the box ended up outdoors under the same conditions as a car, the colors would disappear from the box -- this would take anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks.”

So, whether -GICLEES- are lightfast or not, they are, at best, -REPRODUCTIONS-.

GAMUT CONTROL INTRODUCES REPRODUCTIONS AS ARTWORK

So, why does Gamut Control CEO John McCormic, on his www.gamutcontrol.com/ceointro.htm website, state: “Our mission is to introduce the world to new artists and artwork by providing quality reproductions, utilizing cutting edge technology, employing the best marketing practices and being able to offer their Limited Editions artwork at affordable prices.”

What are we to make of anyone, much less a Gamut Control’s CEO John McCormic, who offers “reproductions” of the artist’s artwork then in the same sentence morphs them into “their Limited Editions artwork,” when they know all along they own the copyright to those derivatives they reproduced and are only contractual obligated to give the artist what they paid for?

In closing, from my experience and knowledge their is -no- authenticity for reproductions since by definition and law the artist had nothing to do with their reproduction, aside paying for them. Now you could educate the artists to get those reproduction rights reassigned back in writing from the printer to them. After the fact, the printer would probably argue for more money for return of those rights. (Note: if the printer returns those reproduction rights back to the artist, all reproductions, overruns or not, more than the -paid in full- contract would be owned by the artist. Now, ask the printer to hand them over to the artist at no cost and see a firestorm erupt.) Before the fact of having reproductions made, the artist would have the leverage (to spend or not to spend) and from my experience the printer will reassign those rights back to the artist, in a heart beat, if they knew to ask. Most printers just want your money.

So, if an artist, much less anybody, doesn't know their rights, they have -none-.

CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's David Phillips): 

11/10/07 11:21 PM
Subj: Re: The Fox & The Hen
Date: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:28:44 AM From: dphillips@fineartregistry.com
To: -Gary Arseneau-

Thank you very much,
David

On Nov 10, 2007, at 1:14 AM, -Gary Arseneau- wrote:

November 9, 2007

David Phillips
dphillips@fineartregistry.com
(206) 420-8341

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Several weeks ago, I copied, off Google News, the Newswire’s published October 16, 2007 “Authenticity & Provenance Now Guaranteed for Next Generation Limited Edition Prints - Giclees” release to read over carefully later not realizing till now that it was associated with Fine Art Registry and you.

A very -Small World-, isn’t it?

After carefully reading over the Newswire release, I logged onto and reviewed Gamut Control’s www.gamut control.com website. If I may, let me share with you and your colleagues, what I have discovered.

GAMUT CONTROL, THE COACHMAN
Respectfully, Gamut Control reminds me of The Coachman in the old 1940 Disney classic movie Pinocchio. As you may know, the movie is the story of a wooden puppet named Pinocchio who desperately wants to become a real little boy. In his journey to become human, Pinocchio comes across The Coachman’s hench men Honest John and Gideon who lure him to Pleasure Island to eat whatever he wishes and create havoc all day when the true and sinster purpose is to turn wayward boys into donkeys for sale. Fortunately, for all us, including myself, who have seen the movie as a child, it has a happy ending where Pinocchio escapes to eventually become a real little boy. (Source: Wikipedia)

Rhetorically speaking, would those artists who do business with Gamut Control, much less the public, be so lucky?

Let’s see.

LIMITED EDITION ARTWORK AT AFFORDABLE PRICES
In the Gamut Control’s Gamut_Control_NGB_ Trifold PDF file, aside the above title, it states: “Our Philosophy is very simple: ‘Contract the very best artwork, create the highest quality reproductions, market through reputable sources to offer fine art at a fare price.”

First, -red flag-, artwork” reproduced by Gamut Control and then those “reproductions” are marketed as “fine art.”

ASSISTS ARTIST IN REGISTERING THEIR ART Additionally, in the Gamut_Control_NGB_Trifold PDF file, it states: “Gamut Control’s in-house legal dept. assists artist in registering their art with {the] Library of Congress for additional protection.”

Second, -red flag-, under “103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (b)The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work.”

In layperson’s terms, the artist may own the copyright to their painting that Gamut Control may generously assist them in registering with the U.S. Copyright Office but the Gamut Control would own the copyright to the derivatives ie. giclee reproductions they reproduce from the artist’s registered painting.

So, Gamut Control may be generously assisting the artist register their artwork but that is a red herring when it comes to the Gamut Control reproduced derivatives ie. reproductions they, by law, own the copyright to. (Note: Are these the same Gamut Control’s derivatives ie. reproductions being registered at Fine Art Registry but registered as whose reproductions, Gamut Control who owns them or the artists who don’t?)

Just in case, your not convinced these derivatives ie. reproductions are owned by Gamut Control, they know it and admit it.

GAMUT CONTROL OWNS ALL COPYRIGHTS TO DERIVATIVES
This is documented in the Gamut Control’s Photos to Art JPEG file for “Pricing 2007.” In smaller lettering by half than used for the listed prices, it states: “It is further understood that any work performed by Gamut or any of Gamut’s affiliations will be the sole property and ownership of Gamut including any and all copyrights.”

In other words, under U.S. Copyright Law, the printer, in this case Gamut Control, who reproduced the work would only be contractually obligated to give the artist what they paid for. The artist paid for 300 reproduction, they get 300 reproductions. All the overruns, plates, negatives, digital files and the like the printer produced would be theirs and if they chose to they could make more reproductions without the permission, much less the knowledge of the artist.

PRINTING TRADE CUSTOMS This perspective is confirmed by the Printing Industries of America, Inc. in their published Printing Trade Customs, which, in part, states: “6. PREPARATORY MATERIALS Working mechanical art, type, negatives, positives, flats, plates, and other items when supplied by the printer, shall remain his exclusive property unless otherwise agreed in writing.”

So, now what are we to make of Gamut Control’s
Gamut_Control_NGB_Trifold PDF file, when it states: “one of our strategic partners, Fine Art Registry, helps us to give our limited edition giclees the ultimate protection against unauthorized reproductions.”

If you are going to lock the door, make sure the fox is not already in the hen house. Then to add insult to injury, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, states: “giclee (zhee-clay), is an individual produced, reproduction... Giclees are superior to traditional lithography.”

As an artist who creates lithographs, I speak from experience that lithographs are original works of visual art created by an artist that would -never- be trivialized as reproductions.

U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
This perspective is confirmed in U.S. Customs’ “April 2004 Works of Art, Collector's Pieces Antiques, and Other Cultural Property - An Informed Compliance Publication. ” In part, it states: "The expression "original engravings, prints and lithographs" means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in color, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but excluding any mechanical or photomechanical process."

WHAT IS A REPRODUCTION?
On page 350 in Ralph Mayer’s HarperCollins Dictionary of Art Terms & Techniques the term “reproduction” is defined as: “A general term for any copy, likeness, or counterpart of an original work of art or of a photograph, done in the same medium as the original or in another, and done by someone other than the creator of the original.”

U.S COPYRIGHT LAW - RIGHTS OF ATTRIBUTION
Furthermore, under U.S. Copyright Law 106A. Rights of Attribution - “shall not apply to any reproduction.” So, to commingle giclee reproductions done by someone other than the artist with original works of visual art such as lithographs created by an artist as if they were the same exposes, at best, an extreme lack of connoisseurship by Gamut Control.

WHAT IS CONNOISSEURSHIP?
In Paul Duro & Michael Greenhalgh’s published Essential Art History, “connoisseurship” is defined as: “that of the art expert able to distinguish between the authentic and non-authentic, for example between an original and a copy.” Additionally, Gamut Control, on their www.gamutcontrol.com/faq.htm website, asks the question: “How long will these {giclees} last?” with the following answer: “We guarantee they will last 110 years, under normal conditions.” Aside what would be considered “normal conditions”, and aside what documentation does Gamut Control offer to confirm their “guarantee,” what does “last 110 years” really mean?

GICLEE THE BEST OR WORST REPRODUCTION PROCESSES
Unfortunately, a real concern for “giclee” reproductions is the lightfastness issue. In otherwords, is the so-called -GICLEE- technology the best or the worst reproduction process in the industry?

INKS OR DYES
The giclee reproduction technology up till recently only used water-based “dyes” (animal, vegetable or aniline). How can you determine if the giclee reproduction has been reproduced using water-based dyes?

The answer is do the printer, gallery or artist recommend not getting the image wet? Dyes can run if they get wet. (Inks, when dry, do not.) Or do they recommend a protective coating which is another red flag to protect the water-based dyes from running, much less assist in its’ lightfastness.

On the otherhand, recent technological advances in grinding ink (mineral) down to 4 micons and coating them with clear polyuthyrene allows them to use the same printers to reproduce without clogging the jets which would happen immediately with normal ink. So, by using clear polyuthyrene coated inks, the image once dry will not run if the image should somehow get wet.

LIGHTFASTNESS
The other benefit with the use of ink instead of dyes is the lightfastness.

In October 1996, Art Calendar devoted almost an entire published issue to giclee reproduction. The lightfastness issue of dyes used for giclee reproduction were documented from the testing from Group Leader, R&D Paste Inks, Handschy Industries Charles Lakie. In reference to digital dye-based reproductions ie. “giclee,” Charles Lakie wrote: “The difference in fade resistance can be compared to a car (Mel’s Litho) vs. a cereal box (digital editions). The car’s color can withstand any earthly environment and the color will still be there---the color is formulated to last longer than the car itself. The cereal box is formulated to last as long as it takes to put the box of cereal on the store shelves, sell it, put it into a cabinet, take it out only to eat it, and eventually throw it away. There is a minimal exposure to any type of light, so cheaper pigments are used. However, if by chance the box ended up outdoors under the same conditions as a car, the colors would disappear from the box -- this would take anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks.”

So, whether -GICLEES- are lightfast or not, they are, at best, -REPRODUCTIONS-.

GAMUT CONTROL INTRODUCES REPRODUCTIONS AS ARTWORK
So, why does Gamut Control CEO John McCormic, on his www.gamutcontrol.com/ceointro.htm website, state: “Our mission is to introduce the world to new artists and artwork by providing quality reproductions, utilizing cutting edge technology, employing the best marketing practices and being able to offer their Limited Editions artwork at affordable prices.”

What are we to make of anyone, much less a Gamut Control’s CEO John McCormic, who offers “reproductions” of the artist’s artwork then in the same sentence morphs them into “their Limited Editions artwork,” when they know all along they own the copyright to those derivatives they reproduced and are only contractual obligated to give the artist what they paid for?

OUR REPRODUCTIONS - PROTECTION OF THEIR WORK?
Finally, on the Gamut Control’s www.gamutcontrolpublishing.com website, it states: “Creating a strong national and international marketing presence to help promote our fine art is Gamut Publishing’s passion and priority. All our reproductions are secured & registered by the renowned Fine Art Registry. A partnership we are proud to have developed to provide our artist the highest quality protection of their work.”

In closing, from my experience and knowledge their is -no- authenticity for reproductions since by definition and law the artist had nothing to do with their reproduction, aside paying for them. Now you could educate the artists to get those reproduction rights reassigned back in writing from the printer to them. After the fact, the printer would probably argue for more money for return of those rights. (Note: if the printer returns those reproduction rights back to the artist, all reproductions, overruns or not, more than the -paid in full- contract would be owned by the artist. Now, ask the printer to hand them over to the artist at no cost and see a firestorm erupt.) Before the fact of having reproductions made, the artist would have the leverage (to spend or not to spend) and from my experience the printer will reassign those rights back to the artist, in a heart beat, if they knew to ask.

Most printers just want your money. So, if an artist, much less anybody, doesn't know their rights, they have -none-, much less informed choices. I hope the enclosed will empower all to know the choices they have.

Sincerely,

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author
Fernandina Beach, Florida

 [NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]

 CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's Theresa Franks):

From: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
To: -Gary Arseneau-
CC: dcpw@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:44:45 -0700

Hello, Gary...

Be advised that Gamut Control has been terminated and is banned from the Fine Art Registry web site. All of the quotes you used from the Gamut Control web site that mention Fine Art Registry are neither approved nor are condoned by us and our lawyers have demanded that all references to FAR be removed from the Gamut Control web site.

I respectfully request that you please remove any reference from your blog that makes it appear in any way that FAR and Gamut Control have any kind of connection whatsoever, because we do not.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Kind regards,

Teri Franks
www.FineArtRegistry.com
888-595-2787

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]

From: -Gary Arseneau-
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:39 PM
To: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
Cc: gchristensen@fineartregistry.com; david@freelancewriterphotographer.com; dankoon1@sbcglobal.net; meiren704454@hotmail.com; corkmarch@earthlink.net; anayat411@aol.com; dphillips@fineartregistry.com
Subject: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?

FYI

Link to: http://garyarseneau.blogspot.com/2008/04/gamut-control-fine-art-registry-whose.html

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author
Fernandina Beach, Florida

                              [NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]

CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's Theresa Franks):

From: -Gary Arseneau-
To: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
Subject: RE: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:49:43 -0400

April 7, 2008

Teri,

Glad to here it. Gamut Control is really something else.

I warned Phillip months ago but got no response.

As for your request, consider it done.

Gary Arseneau
artist, creator of original lithographs, scholar & author

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]

CORRESPONDENCE (to and from FAR's Theresa Franks):

To: -Gary Arseneau-
CC: dcpw@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Gamut Contol & Fine Art Registy, Whose Reproductions Are They?
From: tfranks@fineartregistry.com
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:47:16 +0000

Hi Gary...

Thanks very much for your prompt response. I do so much appreciate your cooperation. Please, if you know of any artists that may have been duped by Gamut Control, please let us know as we are trying to rescue a number of artists that have had the unfortunate experience of crossing paths with them.

Rest assured that FAR is working behind the scenes to help these artists.

FAR is a huge advocate for artists' rights. We do not take abusive and deceptive trade practices against artists lightly and we will do all that we can to prevent it, which is why we took measures to ban Gamut from using FAR.

Thanks so much....

Best,
Teri Franks
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld

[NOTE: -Gary Arseneau- substituted for email address.]