CAA News Today
Why Art Is Dangerous: Making Art Is Making Trouble
posted by Christopher Howard — February 24, 2014
Written by Donald Preziosi on February 17, 2014.
Above the entrance to an exhibition in Paris in 2011 at the Centre Pompidou called The Promises of the Past was written the claim that the function of art was to make the world better. Better than it might appear at present.
Yet you could argue, at the same time, that what art creates may be a worse world—worse than it appears, or not at all what you would like it to be. Art as both amelioration, betterment, and creative construction: as world-making—and also as destruction and distraction from what reality is imagined to be. The construction and deconstruction of what one takes as reality or as natural.
How could this be? How can we unravel such a dense fabric?
Art has long been regarded as dangerous to the stability of a society and to its professed or desired ideal order. Indeed, 2,500 years ago, in a text we know as The Republic, the Greek philosopher Plato sought to banish the representational arts from an ideal community, because of their distracting effects on its citizens. However powerful, beautiful, spiritually uplifting, or life-enhancing they might be, works of art had the potential to cause individuals to imagine realities differently than what was promoted as real or natural by those holding or desiring power. Plato was far from alone or unique in such a view either in his own or in other societies, both ancient and modern, but his writings give us an insight into the social logic behind such a view.
The simplest and most compelling rationale is this: that the awareness of the artistry or facture of a work of art—the fact that it is a product of human creativity—makes it possible to imagine that the reality it portrays or projects might be imagined otherwise. Both by others or even by oneself at different times or in different places. In other words, once you are aware that the forms and meanings taken by your society as real or natural (perhaps even as created or inspired by superhuman forces) are among any number of possible realities or belief systems, then space is opened for imagining other ways of world-making. To put it another way, you don’t need the visible presence of different social systems, either next door or across the river, to imagine differences: the different exists within art itself.
But what could this mean? The reason for this has to do with what we might call the inherent instability and slipperiness of how things mean—the demonstrable fact that an object or artifact can have different meanings and connotations in different times and places. Just as the same or similar form can have multiple meanings, so the same or equivalent meaning might be embodied or portrayed by distinct forms or expressions. This has been absolutely central to many theological, philosophical, or political debates, now and in the past. It’s the problem of the “relations between” art and religion, or “between” art and politics.
To put this another way, if the only tool you have were a hammer, you’d tend to treat everything as a nail. Thus, as a species, we would be less likely to have survived very long outside a very specific and isolated environment. In technical terms, the potential indeterminacy of meaning—the fact that it cannot be fully controlled—allows for and affords the possibility of adapting to the vagaries of human encounters with worlds. We are, in short, adapted to change; our very existence depends on that flexibility, that openness.
What all or any of this has to do with the dangers of art should be fairly evident and not exactly, as they say, “rocket science.” But remember that science, after all, is itself one of the finest and powerful of the fine arts. And consequently one of the more dangerous.
Art’s dangers are at the same time the source of its powers for positive change and social advocacy. Art advocates and invokes as much as it revokes what you imagine yourself and your worlds to be. Those selves are porous: permeated by and defined relative to others, real or imagined. And, in fact, a close attention to the real powers of art makes the distinction itself between the real and the imaginary, between fact and fiction, and circumstantial and conditional rather than fixed and permanent.
Art is dangerous, in the end, because it brings to consciousness the reality of the fiction of reality—that reality is a work of art: the finest of the fine arts, the supreme fiction.
CAA Comment on George Bellows Painting Sold by Randolph College
posted by CAA — February 10, 2014
The College Art Association endorses the deaccessioning policies of the American Association of Museums and Association of Art Museum Directors. These mandate that once a museum approves the serious step of a sale of works from its holdings, those proceeds be put toward the collection and not toward institutional operating costs. The recent sale of the George Bellows painting Men of the Docks from the Maier Museum at Randolph College violates these principles. CAA supports the AAMD censure of the Maier Museum at Randolph College and expresses its regret that Randolph College has compromised the educational and cultural mission of the museum by treating its collection as a fungible asset rather than as a vital part of the institution’s artistic heritage, held in trust for its students and the community.
Obama and Art History
posted by Linda Downs — January 30, 2014
The College Art Association has great respect for President Obama’s initiative to provide all qualified students with an education that can lead to gainful employment. We support all measures that he, Congress, State Legislatures and colleges and universities can do to increase the opportunities for higher education. However, when these measures are made by cutting back on, denigrating or eliminating humanities disciplines such as art history, then America’s future generations will be discouraged from taking advantage of the values, critical and decisive thinking and creative problem solving offered by the humanities. It is worth remembering that many of the nation’s most important innovators, in fields including high technology, business, and even military service, have degrees in the humanities. Humanities graduates play leading roles in corporations, engineering, international relations, government, and many other fields where their skills and creating thinking play a critical role. Let’s not forget that education across a broad spectrum is essential to develop the skills and imagination that will enable future generations to create and take advantage of new jobs and employment opportunities of all sorts.
Read more coverage on this topic:
http://chronicle.com/article/No-Laughing-Matter-/144327/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
NHA Memo to Members
posted by CAA — January 16, 2014
Stephen Kidd, executive director of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA), sent the following email on January 15, 2014.
NHA Memo to Members
Dear NHA Member Representatives,
Please click here for a new Memo to Members. This edition features:
- Capitol Hill news, including an overview of humanities funding in the proposed omnibus spending bill
- National Endowment for the Humanities news
- Studies, reports, and initiatives
- A compendium of humanities news articles and essays
- Federal grant opportunities
We encourage you to share this memo with your colleagues. If you have information to suggest for a future edition, please contact Erin Mosley at emosley@nhalliance.org.
Arts Victory in Congress!
posted by CAA — January 15, 2014
Nina Ozlu Tunceli, executive director of Americans for the Arts, sent the following email on January 14, 2014.
Arts Victory in Congress!
Victory – your voice was heard on Capitol Hill.
Late last night, Congress released the details of its massive FY 2014 Omnibus spending bill. I am pleased to share that the online petition that you and 40,000 other arts advocates signed this fall helped lead the way to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) being allocated $146 million for the year. We cannot thank you enough for taking the time to sign and share our petition.
Because of members like you, arts advocates successfully prevented a proposed 49% budget cut from taking place!
In fact, this new funding level is, in effect, an increase over last year’s since Congress is suspending the automatic sequester cuts that began last year. NEA will now have the full spending power of $146 million to invest in community-based arts programs across the country.
Together, we provided a strong voice for the arts. We now need your support to continue this momentum with the 2014 midterm elections right around the corner. With so many Members of Congress retiring, please consider contributing today to help us educate the next generation of elected leaders.
Copyright Office Releases New Report on Resale Royalties
posted by Christopher Howard — December 13, 2013
The U.S. Copyright Office today publicly released a report on the issue of resale royalties for visual artists, or the “droit de suite.” The report was requested by Congressman Jerrold Nadler and Senator Herb Kohl in 2012, and is an adjunct to the Office’s 1992 report on the same topic. Some seventy countries have enacted resale royalty provisions in their laws, over thirty of them since 1992, including the United Kingdom, which is home to one of the world’s most significant art markets.
The Copyright Office has concluded that certain visual artists may operate at a disadvantage under the copyright law relative to authors of other types of creative works. Contrary to its 1992 report, the Office is supportive of further congressional exploration of a resale royalty at this time. It also supports exploration of alternative or complementary options that may take into account the broader context of art industry norms and art market practices, for example, voluntary initiatives or best practices for transactions and financial provisions involving artworks. The report reflects the diversity of public comments received by the Office over the past year, and makes a number of observations and recommendations that Congress may wish to consider in its deliberations.
The full report is available at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/resaleroyalty/usco-resaleroyalty.pdf
Letter Urging Secretary John Kerry to Restore Funding for Title VIII
posted by CAA — December 12, 2013
Anne Collins Goodyear, president of CAA’s Board of Directors, and Linda Downs, the organization’s executive director, signed the following letter. You may wish to view a list of programs that have been eliminated by the government that have been supported by Title VIII: http://aseees.org/new/title8-alert.php.
Letter Urging Secretary John Kerry to Restore Funding for Title VIII
December 11, 2013
The Honorable John Kerry
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Kerry:
The undersigned individuals and organizations share with the Department of State the fundamental goal of creating a peaceful, secure, and prosperous global future. To achieve such an end in an increasingly complex world, the U.S. needs accurate analyses by well-trained specialists both in and outside the government.
For the region of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, the Department of State has for thirty years trained future leaders and scholars through the Research and Training for Eastern Europe and the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Act (PL 90-164, Title VIII). Title VIII has played a significant part in the education of many prominent American policymakers and specialists in the region, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, and US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. We are writing to you today to urge you to restore funding for the Title VIII program and to include funding for the Title VIII program as part of your fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Title VIII programs in fiscal year 2012 were administered by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and supported by the Department of State at a level of $3.5 million. Despite its low cost, Title VIII is a program that continues to have a significant impact on the analytic and diplomatic capacities of the Department of State and on the research base in the academic sector.
At stake are programs that support policy-relevant research, advanced language training, and a specialized information clearing house and reference service related to countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Russia and Eastern Europe. A remarkably high percentage of US university faculty who teach about Eastern Europe and Eurasia, State Department specialists on the region, and think tank analysts who advise policymakers have conducted their field work and research and obtained advanced language proficiency thanks to programs funded by Title VIII.
Although the Department of State solicited applications for a fiscal year 2013 Title VIII program, the Department in September announced the cancellation of the program for fiscal year 2013 because it did not receive appropriations. We believe the discontinuation of this program is short-sighted and not in the national and public interest. We urge you to use existing authority to continue to fund this program under the administration of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at least at the current funding level of $3.5 million for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. We also ask that you include at least that level of funding within the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Title VIII program.
Title VIII is a small but impactful program that has directly supported several generations of policymakers, diplomats and scholars and indirectly supported their thousands of students and the people who depend on their analyses to make the right business, humanitarian, and foreign policy decisions about a crucial region of the world.
We respectfully draw your attention to this issue and strongly urge that the Department of State immediately take steps to restore funding for the Title VIII program.
Sincerely,
Diane P. Koenker
President, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Professor of History, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Stephen E. Hanson
Vice President, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Vice Provost for International Affairs, College of William and Mary
Lynda Park
Executive Director, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Ambassador John Beyrle (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and Bulgaria
Ambassador James F. Collins (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia
Ambassador Jack Matlock (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union
Ambassador Richard Miles (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, and Georgia
Ambassador Thomas W. Simons, Jr. (Ret.)
Former U.S. Ambassador to Poland
Mary Thompson-Jones
Senior Foreign Service Officer (Ret.)
Michael M. Crow
President, Arizona State University
Robert A. Easter
President, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Michael McCarry
Executive Director, Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
John R. Fitzmier
Executive Director, American Academy of Religion
Edward Liebow
Executive Director, American Anthropological Association
Thomas Seifrid
President, American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Vitaly Chernetsky
President, American Association for Ukrainian Studies
Alexander J. Beecroft
Secretary-Treasurer, American Comparative Literature Association
Pauline Yu
President, American Council of Learned Societies
Dan Davidson
President, American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS
James Grossman
Executive Director, American Historical Association
Jonathan Rodgers
Secretary-Treasurer, American Oriental Society
Steven Rathgeb Smith
Executive Director, American Political Science Association
Douglas Richardson
Executive Director, Association for American Geographers
Cynthia Werner
President, Central Eurasian Studies Society
Anne Collins Goodyear
President, College Art Association
Linda Downs
Executive Director, College Art Association
David A. Berry
Executive Director, Community College Humanities Association
Melissa Feinberg
President, Czechoslovak Studies Association
Emese Ivan
President, Hungarian Studies Association
Ambassador W. Robert Pearson (Ret.)
President, IREX
William P. Rivers
Executive Director, Joint National Committee for Language-National Council on Language and International Studies; Chair, ASTM F43 Committee on Language Services and Products
Amy W. Newhall
Executive Director, Middle East Studies Association
David P. Patton
President, National Council for Eurasian and East European Research
Stephen Kidd
Executive Director, National Humanities Alliance
Ira Katznelson
President, Social Science Research Council
Pauline Saliga
Executive Director, Society of Architectural Historians
Kevork B. Bardakjian
President, Society for Armenian Studies
James Castonguay
Treasurer, Society for Cinema and Media Studies
Irina Livezeanu
President, Society for Romanian Studies
Olga M. Mladenova
President, South East European Studies Association
Laura Adams
Director of the Program on Central Asia and Caucasus, Harvard University
Stephen K. Batalden
Director, Melikian Center: Russian, Eurasian, & East European Studies, Arizona State University
David Cooper
Director of the Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Victor Friedman
Director, Center for East European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, University of Chicago
Robert M. Hayden
Director, Russian & East European Studies, University of Pittsburgh
Yoshiko M. Herrera
Director, Center for Russia, East Europe and Central Asia, and Co-Director, International Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Gail Kligman
Director, Center for European and Eurasian Studies, UCLA
Terry Martin
Director, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University
Scott Radnitz
Director, Ellison Center for Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies, University of Washington
Also Signed are ASEEES Board and Past Presidents
Mark R. Beissinger, Princeton University
Marianna Tax Choldin, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Katerina Clark, Yale University
Megan Dixon, College of Idaho
Zsuzsa Gille, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Bruce Grant, New York University
Beth Holmgren, Duke University
Adeeb Khalid, Carleton College
Judith Deutsch Kornblatt, University of Wisconsin
Gail Lapidus, Stanford University
Susan Linz, Michigan State University
Harriet L. Murav, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Mieke Meurs, American University
Norman Naimark, Stanford University
Joan Neuberger, University of Texas at Austin
Janice T. Pilch, Rutgers University Libraries
David L. Ransel, Indiana University
Irina Reyfman, Columbia University
Douglas Rogers, Yale University
William Rosenberg, University of Michigan
Jane Sharp, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Olga Shevchenko, Williams College
Valeria Sobol, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Ronald Suny, University of Michigan
William Taubman, Amherst College
Katherine Verdery, CUNY Graduate Center
Mark L. von Hagen, Arizona State University
Leslie Waters, College of William and Mary
Robert Weinberg, Swarthmore College
cc: Ambassador William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Secretary Daniel Rubinstein, Acting Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) Ambassador Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary for Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
(EUR/FO)
Letter Urging Secretary John Kerry to Restore Funding for Title VIII by December 6
posted by CAA — December 04, 2013
Anne Collins Goodyear, president of CAA’s Board of Directors, and Linda Downs, the organization’s executive director, signed the following letter.
Letter Urging Secretary John Kerry to Restore Funding for Title VIII by December 6
December 4, 2013
The Honorable John Kerry
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Kerry:
The undersigned individuals and organizations share with the Department of State the fundamental goal of creating a peaceful, secure, and prosperous global future. To achieve such an end in an increasingly complex world, the U.S. needs accurate analyses by well-trained specialists both in and outside the government.
For the region of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, the Department of State has for thirty years trained future leaders and scholars through the Research and Training for Eastern Europe and the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Act (PL 90-164, Title VIII). Title VIII has played a significant part in the education of many prominent American policymakers and specialists in the region, including former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, and US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. We are writing to you today to urge you to restore funding for the Title VIII program and to include funding for the Title VIII program as part of your fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Title VIII programs in fiscal year 2012 were administrated by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and supported by the Department of State at a level of $3.5 million. Despite its low cost, Title VIII is a program that continues to have a significant impact on the analytic and diplomatic capacities of the Department of State and on the research base in the academic sector.
At stake are programs that support policy-relevant research, advanced language training, and a specialized information clearing house and reference service related to countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Russia and Eastern Europe. A remarkably high percentage of US university faculty who teach about Eastern Europe and Eurasia, State Department specialists on the region, and think tank analysts who advise policymakers have conducted their field work and research and obtained advanced language proficiency thanks to programs funded by Title VIII.
Although the Department of State solicited applications for a fiscal year 2013 Title VIII program, the Department in September announced the cancellation of the program for fiscal year 2013. We believe the discontinuation of this program is short-sighted and not in the national interest. We urge you to use existing authority to continue to fund this program under the administration of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at least at the current funding level of $3.5 million for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. We also ask that you include at least that level of funding within the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Title VIII program.
Title VIII is a small but impactful program that has directly supported several generations of policymakers, diplomats and scholars and indirectly supported their thousands of students and the people who depend on their analyses to make the right business, humanitarian, and foreign policy decisions about a crucial region of the world.
We respectfully draw your attention to this issue and strongly urge that the Department of State immediately take steps to restore funding for the Title VIII program.
Sincerely,
Diane Koenker
President, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Professor of History, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Stephen Hanson
Vice President, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Vice Provost of International Affairs, College of William and Mary
Judith Deutsch Kornblatt
Immediate Past President, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Professor Emerita of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Wisconsin
Lynda Park
Executive Director, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
Dan Davidson
President, American Councils of International Education
William Rivers
Executive Director, National Council for Languages and International Studies
Laura Adams
Director of the Program on Central Asia and Caucasus, Harvard University
Anne Collins Goodyear
President, College Art Association
Codirector, Bowdoin College Museum of Art
Linda Downs
Executive Director, College Art Association
Artists’ Resale Royalty Bill to Be Reintroduced
posted by Linda Downs — November 26, 2013
Representative Jerrold Nadler (D, NY) announced on Monday, November 22, 2013 his intent to introduce a revised Equity for Artists bill early in 2014. He and Senator Edward J. Markey (R-Mass) who will co-sponsor the bill finished a draft on Monday and support has already been committed by Senator Tammy Baldwin (D, Wis). The bill is similar to HR 3688 introduced last year and not acted upon by the Judiciary Committee. This bill maintains the 5% of the sales price for works auction for prices at $5,000 and above for living artists and those deceased plus 70 years, which follows the copyright law. The motivation for the bill is to ensure that artists do not lose out on any increase in value for future sales and provides reciprocity with the 70 countries that already have adopted similar legislation. The new bill eliminates the portion allocated in the first bill to art museums for new acquisitions. The AAMD requested that this clause be eliminated. Only those sales through auction houses are included in the bill. Nadler indicated that galleries were not included at this time in order to provide greater opportunity to get the bill passed.
Nadler spoke on Monday as part of a five-person panel sponsored by the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) at Scandinavia House. In addition to Nadler the panel included Philippa S. Loengard, Assistant Director and Lecturer in Law, Kernochan Center, Columbia Law School; Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights; Director of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office; Theodore H. Feder, Ph.D., Founder and President, Artists Rights Society (ARS); and Sandra L. Cobden, General Counsel, Dispute Resolution and Legal Public Affairs, Christie’s. Loengard provided the historical context of artists’ resale royalty rights from the 1920s in France and the 2006 updated legislation of the European Union to the most recent legal action in the U.S. regarding the California resale royalty law originally instituted in 1976 and ruled unconstitutional by California Judge Nguyen. This case is currently on appeal brought by Chuck Close and other artists in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and is expected to be decided early in 2014 http://clancco.com/wp/2012/05/art-law-droit-de-suite/.
At the request of Congressman Nadler the U.S. Copyright Office undertook an extensive study and analysis of the status of artists in regard to copyright and in relation to other artists such as writers, actors, screen writers and musicians who receive residuals for their work and whether artists are fully exploiting their rights within the current copyright law. The Copyright Office will issue their findings on or before December 12th. The issues they addressed were 1) financial—are visual artists benefiting within the allowance of the copyright law; 2) morality issues—are visual artists benefiting as well as other artists; 3) fairness—would this benefit a large number of professional artists, is the proposed amount reasonable and are the administrative aspects a burden; 4) limitations—what regulations or limitations should be put in place considering that the art market is generally unregulated. The Copyright Office requested formal comments in March and 59 individuals and organizations sent formal comments. On April 23, 2013 the Copyright Office held a hearing in which among other organizations, CAA made its case for the artists resale royalty represented by Anne Collins Goodyear, President. The Copyright Office also reviewed all the government studies on the effectiveness of the European Union system of resale royalties.
While many of the specifics of the Copyright Office could not be presented until it is published in December the following general observations were shared by Claggett: 1) Of all the world art markets, only China and the U.S. (the two largest art markets) do not have resale rights programs; 2) government studies indicate that these programs have no negative impact on the art market; 3) it is difficult to grasp how artists are hindered by current law and practice and the Copyright Office questions whether the resale royalty law is the best solution; 4) opposing parties are using the same statistical information to “prove” opposing perspectives on the legislation. The Copyright office staff refers to this as the “Rorschach Test.” Claggett stated that given the different perspectives on this issue that the Copyright Office report will not make any of the interested parties happy.
Ted Feder from ARS pointed out that this is only visual artists who currently do not get royalties and cited the current rates that Christie’s “taxes” buyers, from 20% to 25% and sellers from 1% to 10% depending on the price of the art work. He believes that the small percentage increase in sales required by the resale royalty legislation would be negligible to Christie’s clientele.
Sandra Cobden from Christie’s stated that while the auction house supports the rights and interests of artists it believes that the proposed resale royalty legislation is a “broken model.” She cited the study commissioned by Christie’s of the impact of the EU art market after the latest 2006 legislation where the art market in the EU grew 32% while that in the US grew 120% and China’s grew 121% in the same period. This was countered by Nadler who indicated that the EU at that time was in a general economic slump. She also suggested that this legislation is unconstitutional since it would only require auction houses and no galleries or ecommerce sites to institute this system. Her solution is to abandon this legislation and amend the tax laws so that artists may deduct the sales price when donating works to art museums and non-profit institutions.
Watch
Art for Sale? Bankruptcy and the Detroit Institute of Arts from Sharon Flescher on Vimeo.
Artists Resale Rights in the US: Overdue or Shouldn’t Do?
posted by Linda Downs — November 18, 2013
The International Foundation for Art Research will host its next IFAR Evenings event, “Artists Resale Rights in the US: Overdue or Shouldn’t Do?” in New York on Monday, November 25, 2013, from 6:00 to 8:30 PM. A Q&A session and a reception will follow the presentations.
Unlike many countries, the United States does not provide for resale royalties for visual artists (also known as droit de suite) by statute. A California royalty right, enacted in 1976, was recently ruled unconstitutional, a decision currently on appeal. In December 2011, Congressman Jerrold Nadler sponsored H.R. 3688, the Equity for Visual Artists Act, recommending a federal resale royalty. While the Judiciary Committee failed to act on the bill in the 112th Congress, a new version of the bill is expected to be reintroduced in this Congress. On Nadler’s request, the US Copyright Office has been reviewing the implications of enacting a federal resale royalty law. Its report is expected soon.
Please join the following distinguished speakers as they discuss this important and often divisive issue:
- Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs, US Copyright Office
- Sandra L. Cobden, General Counsel, Dispute Resolution and Legal Public Affairs, Christie’s
- Theodore H. Feder, Founder and President, Artists Rights Society
- Philippa S. Loengard, Assistant Director and Lecturer in Law, Kernochan Center, Columbia Law School
- Jerrold L. Nadler, Congressman, Tenth Congressional District, New York
Space is limited; advance reservations with payment are essential. The program is free to IFAR members and supporters, with a reduced rate for IFAR Journal subscribers and full-time students with ID. Tickets are $25 each for the general public.
About IFAR
Established in 1969, the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) is a nonprofit educational and research organization dedicated to integrity in the visual arts. It works at the intersection of art scholarship, art law, and the public interest. IFAR has hosted IFAR Evenings since 1981. These are informal lectures and panels on topics related to IFAR’s core areas, including art attribution and authenticity, ownership, theft, looting, and other legal, ethical and scholarly issues concerning art objects. Several IFAR Evenings are usually scheduled each year. IFAR also organizes conferences and symposia; publishes the award-winning IFAR Journal, offers an Art Authentication Research Service and provenance research services; serves as an information resource; and has recently launched an expanded website with several new research tools, including the Art Law & Cultural Property Database and the Catalogue Raisonné Database.