298

Professional Notes

Legal I: Site-Specific Art and Changing Circumstances

Two well-known artists battled to prevent the removal of their murals from the Capital in Washington state. After five years of controversy, the court permitted one mural to be removed and the other to remain in place though covered. Three thousand miles away, in New York, another artist was engaged in a similar battle. His metal sculpture Tilted Arc was installed in a public plaza in a manner, it was alleged, that forced pedestrians to walk around the sculpture to go from building to building. The artists objection to having his work removed was dismissed by the courts. These cases demonstrate the problems for site-specific art when museum circumstances, both physical and political, change. Museum administrators are familiar with the related problem of the obligation to display works of art because of conditions placed on gifts and bequests. However, the special problem associated with site-specific art at museums is only beginning to surface. As museums expand and commission more works of art for their own buildings and grounds, their administrators must become aware of legal limitations on altering or removing site-specific works of art. The term site-specific art is relatively new. The concept, however, has a long history that includes such masterpieces as the Sistine Chapel. In the United States, Mount Rushmore is an example on a grand scale, but site-specific art can take many forms. It can be a sculpture, textile weavings for wall-hangings or floor-coverings, wood-carvings for doors or walls, frescos, murals or stained glass. Site-specific art is conceived and created with a specific location in mind. The artist makes compromises and adjustments to his design to achieve the desired harmony. The completed work is an integral part of the setting. Removal is tantamount to total destruction of the work. The Washington cases began in 1979 after a competition to select artists for murals in the legislative chambers. The artists entered into contracts with the state to create murals for the House and Senate. In the negotiations, it was understood that the works would be site-specific, designed for installation in the specific locations and to the exact dimensions of each location. In fact, one of the murals had to be planned around an existing clock. The murals were to become an integral part of the building and would remain on permanent display in their original locations. One, The Twelve Labors of Hercules, drew its inspiration from Greece in reference to the labors required to bring about legislation. The artist also drew a parallel between Olympia, as the capital of Washington, and Olympia in ancient Greece, the cradle of democratic government. Unfortunately, many legislators did not see the work in this light. Shortly after two of the murals were installed, criticism began to mount. The silhouettes depicted by the artists as Herculean labors, were imagined by others as sexual acts. Sheets of plywood were nailed over the offending works and heavy drapes were hung to cover the unsightly plywood panels. This cover remains in place today. The remaining murals were never completed. the artists untitled abstract landscapes fared In the other legislative chamber, somewhat better, at least for a while. However, after six years, complaints arose that the murals pastel colors clashed with the new color scheme selected for a million-dollar renovation. Since these works were merely bolted to the wall, the court approved their removal. A hole where the wall-clock was located remained. The other murals had been glued to the wall, so their removal could not be accomplished without destruction. The judge determined that when they could be safely removed the state would be permitted to do so. Until then, they were covered.

Professional Notes Issue, by 1966 and received by the Philadelphia Museum of Art as a gift in 1984. Composed of plaster cut from the wall of the gallery and heaped on the plinth at the foot of the groove thereby created, this site-specific work is covered by a legal agreement with the artist whereby it can be destroyed and remade to the artists design in the future. Sol Le Witts site-specific decoration is to be seen in the adjacent gallery.

C~~tempora~ art instalation at the PhiIadeiphia Museum of Art featuring a site-specific work by Sol Le Witt, designed in 1981, decorating the barrel vault. Sol Le Witts composition-On a Blue Ceiling, Eight Geometric Figures: Circle, Trapezoid, Para~le~~g~a~, Rectangle, Square, Right Triangle, Cross (WaU Drawing No. 348)--was first executed in white chaik over latex paint, in accordance with the artists detailed instrucagreement includes tions: . in 1982. The purchase provtslon for the destruction of the work and its execution again at a later date, always in accordance with the artists instructions for its execution.

How can tnuseums

operations when

avoid the humiliation to the artists and the disruption of their own changing conditions suggest the need to move site-specific art? Many

European countries recognize a moral right of artists which protects their work from destruction. On the other hand, the law in the United States ordinarily allows the owner of an object to remove, relocate, cover or even destroy it, unless there are contract provisions to the contrary. In the cases described, the failure of the artist to have specific language in their contracts caused the court to rule against them. The court reasoned that, had the artists wanted the power to prevent the removal of their works, they should have stated this in the contract. The courts acknowledged that site-specific art has a right to be presented in a way that promotes its aesthetic value. However, it is up to the artist and the museum to see that this principle is embodied in a contract. Language in the contract can make it clear that removal of site-specific works is, in effect, destruction and is therefore prohibited. Specific terms may also set out those situations where removai will be allowed and what precautions must be taken.

300

Professional

Notes

In addition to carefully worded contracts, legislation based on concepts of artists moral rights may protect a site-specific work of art. In California, for example, no person except an artist who owns and possesses a work of fine art which the artist has created shall intentionally commit, or authorize the intentional commission of, physical defacement, mutilation, alteration, or destruction of a work of fine art. New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have similar laws. New York has an additional provision that prevents display of a work of art in an altered, defaced or multilated, or modified form, if in doing so the reputation of the artist suffers. None of the statutes directly prohibits removal of site-specific art from public buildings and museums. However, the right to protect property from removal may be preserved by a written agreement between the museum and the artist. Such an agreement, if properly recorded, will bind subsequent owners. It is safe to conclude that the best course in dealing with site-specific art in a world of changing conditions and political pressures is for museums and artists to be certain that contractual provisions are clear. Before commissioning site-specific art, museums must give special attention to determining under what circumstances, if any, that art should be allowed to be removed. The agreed circumstances should be specific and should include special conditions to protect the art after it is moved. Courts will vary in their sympathy with the parties but will not fill in what they perceive as omissions in the necessary specificity of contracts. In addition, since private parties may not, by contract, agree to violate the law, museum legal counsel must also determine that the agreement does not conflict with statutes that protect art work. Note 1. The author acknowledges
Law, Lewis & Clark the contribution made to this note by Leonard Law School, Portland, Oregon, USA. D. DuBoff, Profesor of

DOUGLAS

A.JOHNSTON