by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Feb 13, 2024 |
For most New Yorkers, the words “Grand Central” may not evoke feelings of romance. However, this historical terminal is more charming than it appears. One of its most endearing hidden gems is a tiny alcove meant to give couples a place to meet up – and share a romantic kiss – after long-distance travel.
Grand Central Terminal. Image via Jakun Halun.
The Kissing Gallery
The Kissing Gallery at Grand Central Terminal, located inside the Biltmore Room, is the place to be this Valentine’s Day. The Kissing Gallery is what it sounds like – a snug alcove in the Biltmore Room, tucked away in largest railroad station in the world, and specifically designed for kissing. It is the place for lovers to steal away from the crowd for a kiss.
The Biltmore Room in Grand Central. Image via gothamist.com.
(Psst..did you know? Grand Central Terminal refers to the terminal line, which means trains stop at Grand Central Terminal. Grand Central Station refers to the subway station inside GCT. Those subway lines pass through GCT).
The origins of the Kissing Gallery date back to Grand Central Terminal’s (GCT’s) earliest days. When GCT opened in 1913, it was a much more organized animal than the spastic craziness modern commuters encounter today. In the beginning, the terminal was carefully planned and designed to facilitate the flow of both long-distance and short-distance travelers.
Early in its operation, staff noticed that foot traffic was constantly jammed in areas where long-distance trains emptied out. The problem? Lovers’ reunions were causing literal standstills on pedestrian walkways.
It’s an adorable slice of New York City history: kissing caused traffic jams, so city dwellers devised an imaginative solution. This solution was simple: create a special room solely for kissing.
Shockingly, this worked, and meeting up in the Kissing Gallery post-transit with a special someone was considered the norm. Traffic jams caused by kissing all but stopped. (Nowadays, pedestrian traffic hold-ups are due to the invasion of the selfie takers. Unless, of course, the hold-up takes place on the field after Super Bowl LVII. Then, foot traffic has stopped to make way for Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s showstopping, celebratory kiss).
The Biltmore Room in the 1950’s. Image via Boris Klapwald.
Even so, a public kissing room was a bit racy for the 1910s. To alleviate any possible discomfort among other travelers, a few ground rules were instituted. The two major regulations were (1) each kiss may last a maximum of five seconds, and (2) absolutely no tongue.
(These rules were actually written in the manual and were readily enforced by GCT staff).
It’s a cute story – The Kissing Gallery, with history that stretches back nearly 120 years, is one of the many secrets and surprises of GCT that have been preserved. GCT’s preservation is due to historic preservation laws – and a major Supreme Court case.
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978)
In the late 1970s, Penn Central (the business owners of GCT) began to make plans for a major renovation to the terminal. Penn Central hoped to install a 50-foot skyscraper atop the historic building. From a business perspective, such an ugly installation made sense. From an aesthetic perspective, it was madness. Thankfully, New York City prevented Penn Central from starting the job. In response, Penn Central sued, arguing that the City’s refusal to let the project go forward amounted to an unconstitutional taking.
A bitter legal battle ensued, and eventually made its way to nation’s highest court. Penn Central’s primary argument for the construction was their company’s bottom line. Penn Central argued economic hardship, should the terminal continue to be run in its present condition. The company also showed the Court accounting documents to demonstrate how much more profitable the terminal would be under the proposed changes. However, the financials alone were not enough to convince the Court.
The Court acknowledged that the proposed transformation would increase the company’s bottom line. But, the Court said, GCT was making Penn Central a considerable profit as it was. Moreover, GCT was already legally a historic building under the Landmarks Act. This was not the determinative factor in the Court’s ultimate decision, but the justices took it into account. The Court said that Penn Central should not have reasonably expected to be able to initiate such a dramatic construction project anyway, because GCT had already been given historic designation under the Landmarks Act.
Grand Central Terminal. Image courtesy of NannFilms, used with permission.
Finally, the Court pointed out that the restrictions that come with owning a historic landmark may seem burdensome, Penn Central also benefitted from the restrictions placed on neighboring properties that prevented certain land use changes. And then (to make matters worse for Penn Central), it turned out that the accounting documents (provided by Penn Central to show economic hardship) were misleading, and did not give an accurate depiction of the company’s profits and losses (whoops).
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City, and stopped Penn Central from breaking ground on their renovation – a decision that buoyed the hearts and souls of art and cultural heritage experts around the world. Not only that, many notable New Yorkers (including a one Jackie O.) were against the destruction of such an important piece of New York City history. Possibly even judges on the Supreme Court were not immune to her charms.
Grand Central School of Art
The Kissing Gallery is not the only romantic secret hidden within the Grand Central Terminal.
A little-known fact about Grand Central is that the seventh floor of the East Terminal once housed the Grand Central School of Art. This was an art school in New York City with instructors who taught skills across artistic disciplines, including sculpture, mural painting, illustration, and costume design.
The Betrothal II by Arshile Gorky (1947). Image via oceansbridge.com.
The Grand Central School of Art (not to be confused with the modern-day Grand Central Academy of Art, which is a wonderful art school on Long Island), was one of the largest and most prominent art schools in the city at its prime. The school’s success (and notable alumni) befits the institution’s illustrious founders: Edmund Grecean, Walter Leighton, and John Singer Sargent.
Who would have thought that John Singer Sargent had the time and energy to open a prestigious art school, on top of all his notable commissions for fancy socialites? In any event, he did, and he and Grecean used their art world connections to bolster an impressive faculty: Chester Beach (sculptor), Ezra Winter (muralist), Dean Cornwell (muralist), Helen Dryden (illustrator and costumer designer) and Arshile Gorky (painter), to name a few.
The school enjoyed a good 20-year history before things turned south. After a grand opening in 1923, the Grand Central School of Art sadly shuttered its doors in 1944 due to financial difficulties.
Even after the school closed, artists from around the world used the vibrant energy of Grand Central Terminal in their work. Something about the fast-paced movement, the glorious architecture, and the joyous lovers reunions must prompt artists to capture the moment with great creative aplomb.
Not convinced? Check out The Kiss by Ernst Hast (1958). The featured couple appears to be truly in love, and also seems to be breaking a few important Terminal rules.
The Kiss by Ernst Hast (1958). Image via icp.org.
The Kissing Gallery is in the Biltmore Room, folks!
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Jan 30, 2024 |
Nu Couché au coussin Bleu by Modigliani. Image via Artsy.
For years, the art world watched the dispute between Russian oligarch Dimitry Rybolovlev and Swiss shipper-turned-dealer Yves Bouvier. While their relationship’s start seemed fruitful and equally beneficial as it led to Rybolovlev’s acquisition of some of the most highly sought-after art treasures, the tide turned when the Russian billionaire discovered that Bouvier had been dishonest about information related to arts sales. Rybolovlev began a legal battle, engaging in scorched earth tactics to pursue claims against Bouvier in jurisdictions around the world. With allegations by a billionaire collector against one of the art world’s best known freeport owners and lavish dealers, many players in the art world were swept up in the fight.
At the heart of the dispute is whether Bouvier committed fraud and breached a fiduciary duty to Rybolovlev. The Russian collector alleges Bouvier flipped high-end artworks that he significantly marked up, although Bouvier represented to Rybolovlev that he was only making a 2% commission on the sales. In some instances, Bouvier concealed the fact that he or one of his shell companies had purchased the artwork shortly before selling it to Rybolovlev. The Russian billionaire alleges this was fraudulent. In addition, the collector argues that Bouvier breached his fiduciary duty because he was the seller, despite Rybolovlev’s belief that Bouvier was serving as his agent and advisor, not as a party with an ownership interest. Bouvier argues he was not Rybolovlev’s agent or advisor. The bounds of the relationship are not clear.
A scorned Rybolovlev filed charges about Bouvier in numerous countries. Eventually, Bouvier was arrested on criminal charges in Monaco in 2015 but was released. Equally salacious were Rybolovlev’s attempts to have authorities prosecute Bouvier, leading to claims that the Russian collector bribed law enforcement to pursue the case against Bouvier. It became known as “Monaco-gate.”
Eventually, Rybolovlev’s legal claims against Bouvier were either dismissed or settled, with the last one settled in December 2023 over claims filed in the United States. However, Rybolovlev felt wronged and thought others were complicit in supporting Bouvier’s fraud, and thus outstanding legal issues remained concerning other parties that were allegedly part of a fraud orchestrated by Bouvier. As Sotheby’s worked with Bouvier to conduct private sales to the collector, Rybolovlev sued one of the world’s leading auction houses in the Southern District of N.Y. (Accent Delight Int’l v. Sotheby’s, 18-CV-9011 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2023). The highly anticipated trial began during the second week of 2024. Closing arguments took place on Monday with the jury deciding the verdict in under 6 hours on Tuesday, January 30.
One of the works Rybololev purchased. Tête by Modigliani. Image via Sotheby’s.com.
WHAT WERE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOTHEBY’S?
Rybolovlev sought $377 million in damages from Sotheby’s, alleging that the famed auction house was complicit in Bouvier’s scheme. He argued that he relied on documents from Sotheby’s when making lavish purchases of blue-chip artworks. Rybolovlev alleged that Sotheby’s and Sotheby’s, Inc. (together, “Sotheby’s”) aided and abetted Bouvier in committing fraud. The complaint reads:
“Sotheby’s gave Bouvier written materials designed to induce Plaintiffs to pay inflated, fraudulent prices. After transactions, Sotheby’s lent a veneer of legitimacy and expertise to those fraudulent prices by providing Bouvier with inflated appraisals on demand. Sotheby’s intentionally omitted the sales to Bouvier from the transaction histories listed in these appraisals. In short, Sotheby’s assisted Bouvier in acquiring artworks at prices the sellers were willing to accept while helping him charge Plaintiffs fraudulently inflated prices (and concealing the actual acquisition prices from Plaintiffs).”
To successfully prove that Sotheby’s aided and abetted in the commission of fraud, Rybolovlev would have had to prove: “(1) the existence of an underlying fraud; (2) knowledge of the fraud on the part of the aider and abettor [in this case, Sotheby’s]; and (3) substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in achievement of the fraud. Many federal New York courts additionally consider whether the alleged “assistance” constitutes the proximate cause of the damage. “But-for” cause may be insufficient. See, Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 446 F. Supp. 2d 163, 201-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“aider and abettor liability requires the injury to be a direct or reasonably foreseeable result of the conduct.”).
While Sotheby’s filings did not deny that Bouvier committed fraud, the auction house addressed allegations against it. As in any legal matter involving claims of fraud, it is a hurdle proving that someone had actual knowledge about a fraud. (This is what Ann Friedman argued in the Knoedler Gallery scandal—she claimed that she did not know that the forgeries sold through the gallery were not authentic.) As predicted, Sotheby’s denied knowledge of, and participation in, any scheme by Bouvier. As I told many reporters during the trial, I expected that Sotheby’s would not be found guilty for this reason– proving knowledge is a challenge.
On Jan. 30th, 2024, the New York jury cleared Sotheby’s of the allegations. The jury deliberated for six hours before releasing their verdict, and found in favor of Sotheby’s on four claims. This has the potential to put an end to the decade-long battle that stems from activity between Rybolovlev and Bouvier.
WHY WAS THIS CASE SO IMPORTANT?
The allegations in this case were not that particularly shocking because accusations of fraud are common, especially because fraud often occurs in the market. The art market is full of forgeries, price-escalation schemes, unnamed middlemen, collectors who do not conduct due diligence, and parties that do not disclose their interests in artworks for sale. But what is special about this case is that the public gets a glimpse into the rarefied world of art collectors and the uber-wealthy.
Christ as Salvator Mundi by Leonardo DaVinci. Image via Financial Times.
WHAT WAS NOT SURPRISING?
It was surprising that Bouvier thought Rybolovlev would not learn about the major markups. Rybolovlev first began to suspect he was being swindled in 2014 – a good twelve years after he and Bouvier began their dealer-purchaser relationship. It is astonishing that Bouvier kept his activity secret for as long as he did, because, in those dozen years, Rybolovlev was mixing with major players in the art world and art media at large – in both formal and informal settings.
In 2014, Rybolovlev read a N.Y. Times article that reported the price of Christ as Salvator Mundi (from the 2013 Sotheby’s private sale) to have been between $75-80 million. Enraged, Rybolovlev contacted Bouvier, who dismissed the Times’ reporting as a mistake. He stated that the media’s price was faulty, and that it did not include fees and commission. Rybolovlev was not convinced. Bouvier – panicked – reached out to Sotheby’s to get an appraisal. The ensuing appraisal (made in January 2015) marks the work’s value at $100 million. However, the named price seems to have been prompted by an email from Bouvier, which requests this $100 million evaluation. It further omitted the 2013 sale of the work to Bouvier (which Sotheby’s brokered).
Even so, from Rybolovlev’s perspective, this appraisal from such a storied and knowledgeable institution could have seemed legit. Bouvier’s subterfuge may have continued to work for another twelve years. However, Rybolovlev was too well connected in the art world for this to continue. While Bouvier scrambled to have the Salvator Mundi appraised, Rybolovlev got his next clue over a casual lunch with a friend in St. Barts in late 2014. Because of Rybolovlev’s connections, it came as no surprise that his lunch partner was an experienced art advisor. The N.Y. Times reports that Rybolovlev was enjoying a casual lunch with his art advisor friend at the Eden Rock hotel on St. Barts when he learned the true price of a Modigliani painting (likely Nu Couche au Coussin Bleu).
With the art world being so small, it is not surprising that Bouvier’s scheme was uncovered. It was only a matter of time before the constant chatter in the art world eventually led to the dissolution of their relationship and to a bitter feud involving hundreds of millions of dollars and featuring the bluest of the blue-chip artists in the high-stakes art world. There are few collectors with the funds to acquire works at such astronomical prices, and even though parties often remain anonymous, it was inevitable that word would get back to Rybolovlev that he was suckered out of hundreds of millions of dollars.
WHAT WAS SHOCKING?
The mere fact that the billionaire sued Bouvier in several jurisdictions around the world, and then pursued Sotheby’s, is actually the most shocking part of this ordeal. Rarely are private and uber-wealthy collectors willing to disclose so much about their personal dealings and friendships. When parties engage in litigation, information is disclosed, and the public is eager to learn more about the dealings of both Rybolovlev and Sotheby’s.
WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE MARKET FOR ART AND ANTIQUITIES?
The art and antiquities market is notorious for being opaque. Anonymity is protected for many reasons, many of which are legitimate. The NY Times traces the secrecy in the market to 15 and 16h century Europe “when the Guilds of St. Luke, professional trade organizations, began to regulate the production and sale of art in Europe. Until then, art was not so much sold as commissioned by aristocratic or clerical patrons. But as a merchant class expanded, so did an art market, operating from workshops and public stalls in cities like Antwerp. To thwart competitors, it made sense to conceal the identity of one’s clients so they could not be stolen, or to keep secret what they charged one customer so they could charge another client a different price, incentives to guard information that persist today.”
However, the lack of information causes major problems because market participants cannot make rational decisions about purchases. The lack of information also leads to challenges completing due diligence, confirming title, navigating the authentication process, preventing money-laundering, and even understanding where artworks go after disputes are resolved (like divorces or business dissolutions). And as we’ve seen in the most recent litigation, it’s not possible to follow the money and determine who is profiting from transactions. Here, Rybolovlev did not know that Bouvier was an interested party with an ownership interest—that lack of knowledge led the collector to trust Bouvier. Rybolovlev did not know that Bouvier was acting against his interests and not on his behalf. While Rybolovlev thought Bouvier was his agent, he was actually the party on the other side of the negotiations.
As Rybolovlev stated during trial, “It’s important for the art market to be more transparent . . . clients don’t stand a chance.” Sotheby’s countered by putting the onus on buyers to do their own homework. The auction house reminded the jury that Rybolovlev is a successful businessman who has conducted major business deals and who should be familiar with due diligence. Sotheby’s stated, “Throughout Mr. Rybolovlev’s testimony, it was patently clear that, as a self-made billionaire with a diverse and expansive network of interests, none of the care and attention to detail he attended to his businesses were given to his art transactions.” Unfortunately, this is common for art collectors—many do not complete sufficient due diligence.
WHAT COULD RYBOLOVLEV HAVE DONE TO PROTECT HIMSELF?
The art market is unusual in that some people pay vast amounts of money on acquisitions without doing much due diligence. This may be because people feel comfortable when operating in such a rarefied world. Some collectors get swept up in the glamor of the art world and act irrationally, forgetting that art world scams occur.
While the art market is not quite ready for full transparency, there are steps collectors can take to protect themselves against predatory practices or fraud. Collectors should have written agreements specifying what a broker/advisor will make on a deal, as well as language that prohibits that advisor/dealer from holding an ownership interest in a work (such as buying it beforehand to flip it, or purchase the work for a company in which he or she has an ownership interest). There are contractual tools used to reduce the risk of deceptive and misleading business practices. An agreement may require parties to disclose information about whether an advisor has an ownership interest in a work. It could also set forth clear information about kick-backs and payments being made to an advisor so that the advisor does not double-dip or play multiple roles in a transaction. To the best of our knowledge, Rybolovlev did not have any of these legal tools in place. If he had them, it would have been easier to sue Bouvier for breach of contract – something easier to prove than fraud.
In addition, collectors should ask for more information and require certain disclosures about parties’ interests. If Rybolovlev had an attorney for the transactions with Bouvier, the attorneys should have required Bouvier to disclose his relationship with sellers and other potential middlemen. If Bouvier lied in these documents, then fraud claims would have been easier to prove.
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE?
The case against Sotheby’s was interesting for a number of reasons. First, it reveals a great deal about the art and antiquities market. There are many buyers engaging in transactions with little to no due diligence, whether their acquisitions are relatively inexpensive or in the tens of millions of dollars. Second, because of the lack of due diligence and transparency, some parties misrepresent or decline to provide material information about transactions, including the identities of parties, the actual sale prices, as well as commissions and kick-backs. Without this information, it is easy for parties to engage in fraud, including financial schemes, forgery conspiracies, and the sale of stolen art and looted antiquities. Finally, the case has provided the public with insights about the high-end art and antiquities market, including a glimpse into the business practices and private relationships of high-end dealers, auction houses, and collectors.
The amount of attention given to this dispute will hopefully encourage art market participants to evaluate their business practices. Although Sotheby’s was not found guilty, the auction house dealt with negative publicity, faced questions about their internal policies, and paid a hefty bill for its legal defense. It would be interesting to learn whether the trial led to Sotheby’s amending any of its internal policies and business practices.
Today, the art and antiquities market is largely unregulated, particularly because major deals are conducted behind closed doors with little oversight. This litigation is a great opportunity for the court to provide guidance to protect parties to these sales and clarify what information a dealer/advisor must provide to his or her clients.
Although Rybolovlev was not successful in this legal action, his lawyer stated that one of his client’s aims was met because the case shined “a light on the lack of transparency that plagues the art market.” He also stated, “That secrecy made it difficult to prove a complex aiding and abetting fraud case. This verdict only highlights the need for reforms, which must be made outside the courtroom.”
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Jan 24, 2024 |
What’s in a name? According to Banksy, quite a lot.
Banksy, the elusive and mysterious street artist, has retitled and redated a famous painting – for the second time.
Girl with Balloon (2006) by Banksy. Image via ArtNet.
The artist first renamed the work (originally called Girl with Balloon, 2006) in 2018, after it went through the shredder during a live auction – to the shock of those present in the crowd (unbelievers are welcome to watch the Youtube footage of the event, in case they missed it. Of particular hilarity is the auctioneer calling for everyone’s “attention” at the close of the footage, in an incredibly kind, polite and posh British accent).
It was a shocking moment, and one that caused a significant stir in the art world. However, Banksy was not done and continued to surprise the industry. Post-transformation, the artist (who remains anonymous) announced through the studio Pest Control that the work was now called (appropriately) Love is in the Bin, and given a new date (2018). The reason? According to Banksy, the intentional modification of the original work produced an entirely new piece.
What of the half-destroyed piece? Sotheby’s was in a bit of a pickle, as the work had been sold prior to going through the shredder. The auction house issued a brand-new certificate of authenticity with the new title. Next, in a moment of breathtaking diplomacy, Sotheby’s managed to sell the half-destroyed work to the original purchaser. Sotheby’s convinced the buyer to go through with the one million dollar sale (plus fees), and heaved a huge collective sigh of relief. The art world accepted the change and the new work as a product of Banksy’s unpredictable creativity and whimsy.
The half-destroyed work. Previously entitled Love is in the Bin (2018). Image via DW.
The Second Change
Years later, in October 2021, Love is in the Bin returned to auction at Sotheby’s. After selling for upwards of $25 million, the work underwent its second re-titling. The piece is now called Girl without Balloon and dated 2021.
Type-A personalities among us may wonder: is this allowed? Do artists have the power to revisit, rename, and re-date works after they enter the market? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. Artists have legal rights – called moral rights – which protect (among other things) artists’ rights of attribution and integrity. Moral rights are principally given through the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) (17 U.S.C. Sec. 101, 106A, 113, 301) and cover the non-economic aspects of artist rights.
Artists’ Moral Rights
The right of attribution (one of the four moral rights of artists included in the statute) gives artists the right to have their names attached to works they have created. Additionally, this right prevents the names of others who did not create the work from being attached to the piece. In Banksy’s case, this right came into play during the intentional partial shredding of the work at auction. Banksy directed the shredding, and then stated that the shredding produced an entirely new artwork – which he also created, vis-à-vis the art handlers at Sotheby’s.
A second important right included in the moral rights of artists is the right of integrity. The right of integrity gives the artists exclusive right to prevent the destruction or modification of work by others. Note that the prohibition is against changes to the work by others – the artist maintains the right to revisit and modify a work at any time (even if, at some earlier point, the artist had treated the work as finished). A modification arguably includes the title and date of a work.
Girl without Balloon by Banksy (2021). Image via NPR.
Where Do Banksy’s Title Changes Fit In?
Our founder, Leila, was interviewed on this very subject in 2015, regarding a piece by Frida Kahlo. When asked about the significance of a work’s title, in relation to an artist’s moral right of integrity, Leila stated:
“A title is a significant piece of a work. [Think] about Duchamp’s ‘Fountain.’ He took a urinal and named it a fountain, and then said it was a piece of art. It was just because he gave it a title and put it in a different context that changed the work in itself, and titles do have the ability to transform a work.” (Emphasis added).
Leila, along with other respected legal scholars, explains that the value of moral rights – such as the right of attribution and the right of integrity – is non-economic. Instead, moral rights encompass the rights of artists that stem from their artistic personas – their personality, style, creativity, whimsy, and studio brand. By protecting artist’s carefully constructed “personas”, the moral rights of artists act as a legal shield for the non-economic components of an artist’s body of work.
The result? Banksy is well within his moral rights as an artist to rename the piece. Banksy’s modifications and transformations of his piece – both physical and titular – reflect the ingenuity and creativity of this astonishing, mysterious artist.
Will the piece undergo another name change, and be given a new date? It’s anyone’s guess. For now, the piece is called Girl without Balloon (2021). But, that could change. As Shakespeare wrote, “We know what we are, but know not what we may be.”
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Jan 23, 2024 |
Our firm is thrilled that this is Master Drawing New York’s (MDNY’s) first year with our client, Christopher Bishop Fine Art, at the helm. This highly-anticipated, week-long event is the premiere art exhibition of works on paper in the United States. Over two dozen galleries on the Upper East Side will feature rare and exquisite works on paper, in addition to some paintings, sculptures, and photographic works. The selected works range in date, with some pieces dating back to the 15th century.
Brochure cover for MDNY 2024. Image via Master Drawings New York.
Those who wish to walk the entire show (despite forecasts for rainy weather) will find that they easily meet their step-goals for the day – MDNY stretches 40 city blocks. In addition to the various exhibitions spanning the fair, several events and lectures will take place in different locations throughout the week. Those interested in attending should be sure to pick up an exhibitor map and calendar at one of several spots in the city, lest they miss out on an exclusive, once-in-a-lifetime event.
Highlights
One of the highlights of the fair comes from our very own client. Christopher Bishop Fine Art will exhibit The Pharoah’s Judgment, an exceptionally rare Spanish drawing discovered at auction in early 2023. The 16th century drawing contains tiny pin pricks throughout the pattern of the drawing. These pin pricks indicate that the pattern was replicated on ecclesiastical garments. MDNY has chosen to exhibit this work in a double-sided frame, in order to best showcase how the maker of the drawing collaborated with the embroiderers on the finished garments.This gives viewers a fascinating inside-look into artist collaborations in the 16th century.
Spirit of Partnership
Speaking of collaborations, this year marks the start of a new, great one. MDNY is partnering with The Drawing Foundation, a New York-based not-for-profit organization whose mission is to advance knowledge and scholarship about drawings. The Drawing Foundation establishes this goal through collaborations with various partners around the world. Our firm applauds MDNY, and, by extension, Christopher Bishop Fine Art, for engaging in this fresh collaboration with The Drawing Foundation. The partnership is sure to foster the newest generation of scholars, students, curators, and appreciators of artistic works on paper.
Collaboration – among artists, galleries, collectors, and audiences – hits at the heart of MDNY itself. The events this week are not to be missed, not only because they are a chance to experience gorgeous art, but because they present an opportunity for the international art community to come together in scholarship and art appreciation.
No one says it better than Christopher Bishop. “All of us who work with drawings — museums, dealers, collectors, and historians alike — are invested in seeing that the joy of the study of drawings is passed on to new generations. This can only be done by knitting the community together ever more strongly and introducing new audiences to the fair.”
by Amineddoleh & Associates LLC | Jan 5, 2024 |
Sotheby’s has had a rocky start to 2024 . The New York Times reports that the auction house is preparing to defend itself in trial next week, in the most high-profile lawsuit the art world has seen since in over a decade.
One of the works Rybololev purchased. Tête by Modigliani. Image via Sotheby’s.com.
Facts of the Case
A Russian oligarch, Dmitry Ryboloblev, is accusing Sotheby’s of aiding in fraud. The trial is based on transactions Sotheby’s oversaw between Rybolobev and a dealer/advisor named Yves Bouvier. Bouvier has been accused of secretly acting as both an art dealer and owner of works he sold to Rybolobev, while Bouvier also represented himself as an art advisor. According to Ryboloblev, playing multiple roles enabled Bouvier to dramatically inflate the estimated value of any art sold, and pocket the difference.
Sotheby’s has been accused of helping Bouvier in his deception. The auction house has been accused of knowing that Bouvier lied to Rybolobev about the price of the artwork that Bouvier paid for it, and then helping Bouvier to adjust the work’s valuation accordingly. It will be difficult to prove that Sotheby’s knew that Bouvier was lying to his client, Rybolovlev. However, the evidence presented at trial could convince a jury that Sotheby’s representatives knew Bouvier was inflating the estimated value of the artwork being sold.
The most damning evidence is (as it always is) found in the digital breadcrumbs: certain emails admitted into evidence indicate that Sotheby’s representatives might have altered their valuations based on Bouvier’s instructions –allowing them to both profit from the difference.
Founder Sought as Expert Voice
The lawsuit may expose some of the secrecy behind the world’s most expensive art dealings, primarily because it involves a jury trial. The entire art world is abuzz with intrigue about the trial, and our founder, Leila, was sought out as an expert voice on this incredibly hot topic.
Leila was quoted in The New York Times, stating “There is so much secrecy in the art world that buyers sometimes don’t know the amount of money being made by others in transactions. . . this case will help to clarify the responsibilities and fiduciary duties owed to clients by dealers and auction houses.”
Anonymity in the Art Market
Our firm previously wrote about the issues stemming from anonymity in the art market here. This new case is expected to further increase transparency around those issues in the art market. It asks difficult questions about where loyalties lie when expectations become blurred and prices shoot sky-high. Another outcome for this trial could be fewer money-laundering schemes hidden in art transactions, because more transparency would give bad actors fewer places to hide.
No matter how this case ends, this trial will be one to watch: it has the potential to initiate a complete overhaul of centuries-old industry practices for art buyers, sellers, auction houses, and dealers around the world.
